New 4x5 film processing system on Kickstarter: $47!

[Tim Meisburger]

They seem pretty focused. I just got my third update. I think this is going to be perfect for travel.

[hamradio]

The problem with this poll is that the number of sheets may most likely be controlled by the capacity of the processing tank. A better poll might be: what would be the ideal number of sheets of 45 would I like to process at one time?

Well, obviously the unicorn processing solution we all seek has the following characteristics:

Processes one or fifty sheets in a crack
Uses the same absolute minimum of chemistry
Doesn't require attention
Washes easily
Maintains perfect temperature
Does everything in one fell swoop

[Jim Cole]

Looks promising, especially for those times when I do not want to drag out the Jobo tank. It was worth a $54 gamble for me as I usually only process 1-4 sheets at a time.

[tim48v]

There have been some concerns about uniform development. (I shoot mainly E6 transparencies and haven't seen a problem but that doesn't mean much.)

Obviously there are too many combinations for us to empirically test every possibility. So here's the question: What combination of film/developer is the "worst case?"

I realize that this is more art than science but there must be some reasonably common but challenging combinations that would be good test cases for us.

Suggestions?

[Michael R]

Tim,

There are a host of variables involved, and generalizations/extrapolations in photographic processing are problematic, so I don't think worst case scenarios would be the best way to begin testing. In my APUG response I suggested you start with a few high quality, general purpose films and a few properly formulated, commercially available general purpose formulas, using standard processes. In my opinion that would be a good place to begin, though others may disagree. Some experimentation may be required with your agitation system (frequency, intensity). The film must be uniformly exposed, of course. A density aim of ~1.0 is a common target.

To me, the system first has to pass using standard materials and chemicals at standard dilutions.

My two cents.

[Duolab123]

Everyone,
Thanks for the comments! Please keep them coming.

Let me address what I can:

First, I don't know why kickstarter won't let you use Paypal. But bear in mind that we, (the project developers), never see your credit card info. Once the project is funded, Kickstarter processes all the cards and wires us the money (after taking their cut and giving the credit card company theirs.) I would expect that they are as secure as Paypal.

Regarding the 'gasket vs plunger' debate; we tried two prototypes with two different gasket configurations and decided we needed a better idea. The gasket complicates the molds for the tank/lid and brings another supplier into the mix. That raises the cost.

As for 'edge to edge' uniformity, we haven't seen any problems. Note, I'm probably not as picky as many of you and our testing has been limited to E-6 and D-76. We're putting a plan together to shoot a series of controlled shots using several different films and developers and then scan them looking for issues. Probably be after Christmas before we have much more data.

As for the agitation debate, I'm preparing a video to address the topic. I hope to have it published (on the kickstarter site) this weekend.

As for the anti-halation backing getting removed: the only issue I've seen is the chemistry not getting to the film under the slots that hold the film. (Mainly on just one of the prototype film holders; the others are fine.) This is one reason we're making the slots wider. The rest of the film seems fine. I would think that the JOBO rotary system would have the same issue (or lack thereof) as it appears to me that the film is in firm contact with the tube.

To wash, I've just removed the lid and let it flood. One could insert a tube/hose down the fill/drain chamber as well. We are looking at adding a nipple to the lid; no promises at this time.

We have a 5x7/8x10 combo version sketched out (4 sheets of 5x7 or 2 sheets of 8x10). However, first, we need to get this project launched and in production. Then we'll need to do more market research to make sure there's a demand. (Launching a kickstarter takes a lot of effort.)

Please continue to spread the word to your fellow photographers.

Thanks again,

Timothy

Looks interesting, one thing to keep in mind. Everyone on this forum most likely already have multiple tanks, reels, gizmos for processing film. I think that concentrating on keeping it small and portable is your best advantage. In the good old days commercial photographers checked their lighting and composition with test shots on film and studio proof paper.
Polaroid is gone, any potential replacement is a pipe dream or going to be very expensive. Put one of these in a changing bag you could use it to check lighting, etc. Then toss the negs. and shoot more film for your Jobo . I think there is definitely a yet to be defined niche for this unit. I use a Jobo 2509n setup and processor that I picked up used. I don't think I've bought a new in box darkroom item since 1973. (except the CL81 )
Personally I don't see how you could pay for the tooling to mass produce, having said that I look forward to seeing how this works. Best Regards, Mike

[StoneNYC]

There have been some concerns about uniform development. (I shoot mainly E6 transparencies and haven't seen a problem but that doesn't mean much.)

Obviously there are too many combinations for us to empirically test every possibility. So here's the question: What combination of film/developer is the "worst case?"

I realize that this is more art than science but there must be some reasonably common but challenging combinations that would be good test cases for us.

Suggestions?

E-6 I would think WOULD be the definitive test, it's the most persnickety.

I would try HP5+ pushed to 3200 in DD-X as the elongated processing time would accentuate any possible issues with uneven development.

Also keep in mind for 8x10 you need 1+4 dilution and 200ml per sheet, so that's 50ml minimum for ONE sheet of 4x5 HP5+ in DD-X without exhaustion, that's 100ml for 2 sheets, so the tank looks very small, make sure it can actually accept enough developer for all film/developer combos.

Also read my response to Mike.

Looks interesting, one thing to keep in mind. Everyone on this forum most likely already have multiple tanks, reels, gizmos for processing film. I think that concentrating on keeping it small and portable is your best advantage. In the good old days commercial photographers checked their lighting and composition with test shots on film and studio proof paper.
Polaroid is gone, any potential replacement is a pipe dream or going to be very expensive. Put one of these in a changing bag you could use it to check lighting, etc. Then toss the negs. and shoot more film for your Jobo . I think there is definitely a yet to be defined niche for this unit. I use a Jobo 2509n setup and processor that I picked up used. I don't think I've bought a new in box darkroom item since 1973. (except the CL81 )
Personally I don't see how you could pay for the tooling to mass produce, having said that I look forward to seeing how this works. Best Regards, Mike

I agree with Mike in that the majority already have a working tank solution for home processing.

What I PERSONALLY see value in, is in the field testing kit. This means when you're out shooting, and you REALLY need to know if the shot is good, you take two shots and develop one right on the spot.

So the value to me is a closed system, making sure it doesn't have a lot of finicky parts, like a swizzle stick...

A cap that seals, take a hint from JOBO and give it a compressible nipple so that excess air that builds pressure has a place to expand without blowing the lid, heck, make it use a water ballon as a seal or something simple, cheap, and easily had. Just an idea, but ultimately the swizzle stick was cycled out years ago for a reason, it's a pain, you drop it, lose track of it, etc, it's too small and doesn't often give even agitation.

Just some thoughts. For me personally it only works with an inversion system.

[Kirk Gittings]

E-6 I would think WOULD be the definitive test, it's the most persnickety.

The definitive test, whether color or b&w, is an evenly lit smooth wall placed on middle gray and thrown way out of focus. No agitation problems can hide in this test.

[Tin Can]

The definitive test, whether color or b&w, is an evenly lit smooth wall placed on middle gray and thrown way out of focus. No agitation problems can hide in this test.

I must try this with my Gas Burst.

[Wsufans]

The problem with this poll is that the number of sheets may most likely be controlled by the capacity of the processing tank. A better poll might be: what would be the ideal number of sheets of 45 would I like to process at one time?

I agree that the number of sheets would be an interesting data point.