Developing 4x5 in the Kitchen?

[vdonovan]

Another vote for the Mod54. I've developed probably a hundred sheets of 4x5 in my kitchen over the last three years, with good consistent results.

[Bob Salomon]

I use a Combi-Plan, also, but I don't use it as a daylight tank — I find it fills & empties too slowly & I don't want to risk uneven development. But it's great in my darkened bathroom.

I do a modified 'dip & dunk' agitation, whereby I grasp the negative carrier by the film clip & gently move the carrier up and down, side to side, front to back, in a sort of 3-dimensional figure eight motion. But as long as you ensure the lid is snapped down tight, inversion works fine with no leaking. Just be sure you are tipping it along the narrow sides, not the wide sides, during inversion, or the surge may dislodge your film.

One more thing: I wound up removing the blue gaskets because I found my negs would often dislodge anyway. It seems the gap was a little too wide to hold them snugly, but removing the gaskets narrowed things nicely.

Throw the blue gaskets away. They were only for using the CombiPlan for 69 processing and the divider rack for 69 was discontinued in 1983 but when we moved production back to the BiWex factory in Sweden they kept including the blue washers. They are not for 45 processing and change the spacing for proper 45 film holding.

[Jim Noel]

“Tray development takes very little amounts of chemicals.”
“The only downside is that it uses more chemistry than a Jobo tank on a roller base or in a jobo cp*.”
“I prefer this over and above the combiplan system even if it does use more chemistry when NOT used on a roller base or jobo processor.

These just happen to be three of the instances I found in this thread. The theme is very common.
Why is it that people are always worried about using minimal amounts of developer, and other chemicals? In today's world they are the cheapest part of the equation. Using minimal quantities often leads to questions of under-development, one edge of the film not being developed, streaks and other problems.
If you are in the habit of following this trend, I urge you to get out of it. One of these days your "Moonrise" negative is going to suffer because of it. And when it does just hear me saying "I told you so."

[williaty]

There's no reason to waste money by using more developer than necessary. There's no reason to create more of a disposal problem by using more developer than necessary. If you can cut your developer usage by 75% (which is entirely realistic going from something like a MOD54 to a Jobo 2553 with 2509N), that's several boxes of sheet film "free" at the end of the year. That's just considering the straight developer cost. Add in the distilled water and disposal costs (since many developers can't be dumped down the drain in many places) and the amount of additional film you can shoot is even greater. You're also reducing your environmental impact by causing less developer to be shipped, less water to be used, and less potentially hazardous waste to be produced. Why wouldn't you want to do something that saves you money and is a good neighbor thing to do?

As far as concerns about quality problems, if you follow the directions carefully for all your chemicals, it's a non-issue. If you read the side of the 2553 tank and see that it says you can use 272mL for your sheet film and forget to check if that's enough developer, that's your own darned fault. In my case, I use a 2553 with 2509N and the side of the tank says I can use 272mL. However, Kodak says for XTOL 1:1 with 1.5 8x10-equivalent-units loaded in the tank I have to use at least 150mL of stock developer so the tank gets 300mL of working strength developer, not the 272mL the side says is a minimum to cover the film.

How is that difficult or unreasonable?

[Tin Can]

Very simple, my hands are wore out. I was a factory mechanic. I drop everything and anything too fussy stops me. I had a set of BTZS tubes and practiced dry. Couldn't get the DRY film in and out. Wet would have been worse. I sold the tubes here.

Then I made my Gas Burst system and find hangers are just doable.

I cannot load roll film on steel reels and I want to. I TRY often. Then I go back to the only plastic reel I can load with great difficulty.

Shuffle in trays was also tryed. I can't feel the film. I do ULF one sheet at a time until I make a ULF Gas Burst BIG tank.

Tonight I will slosh 14X36 X-Ray back and forth as I don't have that big of tray.

Planning and time. Sure am glad I can walk again.

Care to elaborate, just curious, as I have processed thousands of sheets in BTZS tubes. Just processed some 4x5 today.

I have a combination of a blacked out closet and my kitchen. Load the film in the tubes and fill with water for a pre soak, and then replace the caps with chemistry filled ones in the closet. Then move to the kitchen and finish processing in daylight. Yes I un-cap the tubes and drop them in the stop bath tray in the daylight, and then remove the film and fix it in a tray in the daylight. Freaked me out when I saw Phil Davis do that in a workshop.

Lots of different methods, this is what works for me. One of these days I do hope to have a real darkroom.

Roger

[seezee]

Throw the blue gaskets away. They were only for using the CombiPlan for 69 processing and the divider rack for 69 was discontinued in 1983 but when we moved production back to the BiWex factory in Sweden they kept including the blue washers. They are not for 45 processing and change the spacing for proper 45 film holding.

Ah, thanks for that.

[Michael Cienfuegos]

I have successfully used a Unicolor 8x10 print drum to process four sheets of 4x5. It works well, you just have to be sure to put a spacer between the sheets so they don't slide together while on the motor base. I have a Nikor tank and reel for 4x5, but I don't like it.

m

[Patrick Gauthier]

The taco method is easy and reliable with the Paterson universal (super system 4), and then you can also dev you MF and 35mm negs too.

I should say that at first the taco method involved some T&A (trial and adjustments ). I use 750 mL of developer now because it makes sense for my dev dilutions, but I have had success with 500 mL. Taco in the paterson universal will run max 4 negs at a time.

I've been wanting to try the mod 54 (max 6 negs at a time). Consider you're needs in terms of number of sheets vs. volume of chems. Wasted chems sucks. Do you most often come home with multiples of 4 or 6 negs?

Expect some marks on the film from the bands, but so long as they are properly wrapped they will not be on the emulsion side. This isn't a problem with digital processing as scanning the emulsion side you can't see the marks, but I'm not sure about with enlarging. I've heard of some techniques to avoid the issue, but for me there's no issue (maybe it will come back to haunt me if I do enlarging - I don't know - maybe others can comment if artifacts on the shiny side of the negs appear on the prints).

[koraks]

Since both scanning and enlarging are about transmission and variations in density, any visible marks on either the emulsion or the backside of the film *will* end up in the scan or the print. If it's invisible, then you're lucky, but I personally would consider it bad practice to stick with a development method that systematically leaves non-image marks on the film.

[Patrick Gauthier]

Since both scanning and enlarging are about transmission and variations in density, any visible marks on either the emulsion or the backside of the film *will* end up in the scan or the print. If it's invisible, then you're lucky, but I personally would consider it bad practice to stick with a development method that systematically leaves non-image marks on the film.

Indeed I agree. I did some reading. Others suggest the kind of marks I describe are simply the anti-halation layer not being removed because of the band contact, and suggest removing the bands post fix, while still in the fixer, and letting it finish the job of removing the anti-halation layer. I will have to give it a try!