Best ever 4x5 negs, no physical marks, no scratches, no developing marks/stains.

[Ed Bray]

I have just finished developing my first set of four 4x5 negatives in my Paterson Orbital tray (without base) stood in 1.5 litres of tempered water in a 12x16 dish @ 22° C which was on a dishwarmer using Caffenol C-L developer semi-stand @ 21° C. This took 400mls of chemicals to cover the film.

I followed my normal processing/agitation regime of 5 mins pre-wet, 30secs constant agitation followed by 3 gentle tips of the Orbital tray at 2, 4, 8, 18 minutes with the Caffenol CL drained after a further 40 minutes, I then used the tempered water in the dish (300mls a time) to wash the caffenol away with constant agitation now using the orbital's base. A further 4 minutes of Alkali Fix (2x clearing time +1) before washing with 6 trays of 400mls agitated for 1 minute and left to stand for 2 minutes each before draining, a further 400mls with a couple of drops of photoflo for a couple of minutes completed the processing.

3 of the negatives were excellent (the 4th turned out to be Velvia 50) and there was also very little mess which was nice. There is no streaking anywhere on the negatives (common sympton apparently experienced by users of the Orbital) but this may well be down to the long developing time. Much easier to load than other options I have (Taco style or Yankee tank) and only takes 400mls of developer and 200mls of Fix (constant agitation).

Previously I have always had a least one negative that has had a blemish caused by the processing procedure. I am just hoping that the suspected Velvia sheet was not the one that would have had issues.

[Steve Smith]

This took 400mls of chemicals to cover the film.

That's a lot. The Orbital only needs 55ml.

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photo...20orbital.html


Steve.

[Kirk Gittings]

I know people that have had success with the Paterson orbital. I have no experience with them. IME to really test for proper agitation etc. you have to shoot an even target placed on middle grey. The detail and texture of many subjects obscures a lot of problems-the middle grey wall shot will glaringly point out problems if they exist.

[Ed Bray]

That's a lot. The Orbital only needs 55ml.

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photo...20orbital.html


Steve.

That may well be correct for constant or very regular agitation but would not be suitable for Semi-Stand processing where the film has to sit in the chemicals for long spells without any agitation (up to 40 minutes). Also, whilst developing I am using just using the Orbital Lightproof Tray stood in a water bath without the base so there has to be enough chemical to allow for the concave base when non rotated.

[Ed Bray]

I know people that have had success with the Paterson orbital. I have no experience with them. IME to really test for proper agitation etc. you have to shoot an even target placed on middle grey. The detail and texture of many subjects obscures a lot of problems-the middle grey wall shot will glaringly point out problems if they exist.

Thanks for the comment, I will use that as a test for the future.

[Steve Smith]

That may well be correct for constant or very regular agitation but would not be suitable for Semi-Stand processing where the film has to sit in the chemicals for long spells without any agitation.

That makes sense. In that case, 400ml isn't a lot for four sheets of 5x4 compared to other tanks.

When I first got mine (which I use on the hand operated rotating base) I had to try it with 50ml of water with the lid off and four scrap sheets of film as I didn't believe that the small amount of developer claimed would cover the negatives - it does!


Steve.

[Ed Bray]

The other methods I have used use more chemicals, the 'taco method' uses 500mls (4 sheets) and the Doran/Yankee tank needs 1500mls (10 sheets). Both have given slight physical blemishes on at least on sheet per use.

[rcmartins]

Hmmmm....I just got one of those orbital trays and want to try it using my typical highly diluted Rodinal approach of lower than 1+100 concentration. This implies using relatively high volumes of liquids as shown on this thread (400ml). For such amounts I have read that one should cut, or at the very least reduce, the fins below the lid. Ed, those results that you report are with or without the fins on the orbital? I really don't feel like cutting them. Also, did you roughen the base so as to avoid sticking of the films on the bottom? Is this really a problem? Again, I don't really feel like doing it. I could try experimenting with damaged film sheets, but don't have any right now. Thanks...

[Tim Meisburger]

You only have to cut the fins if you use too much developer, as they then interfere with flow. For highly dilute developers there might be a point at which the developer would be exhausted before the sheets were fully developed, but you would have to test to determine where that was.

[Ed Bray]

Ed, those results that you report are with or without the fins on the orbital? I really don't feel like cutting them. Also, did you roughen the base so as to avoid sticking of the films on the bottom? Is this really a problem? Again, I don't really feel like doing it. I could try experimenting with damaged film sheets, but don't have any right now. Thanks...

The fins are still on, I bought my Orbital secondhand and the base was already lightly scored (Mine looks like it has been lightly scored with a knife and then rubbed down to remove the ridges), I understand that you need to either score the base or add small blobs of Epoxy to allow the fluids to get underneath the film to prevent sticking).