MOD54 Mk27, B's 4x5 developing reel Mk2, Stearman Press SP-445 compared with HP5+

[benr]

Hi all,

I'm returning to 4x5 processing after some years. I used to tray process 6 sheets at a time in small trays, with good results.

I'm testing daylight processing options, since I don't currently have a darkroom.

Attached are the results of my first pass comparing the three products mentioned in the title. The MOD54 and B's Mk2 reel went in a Paterson 3-reel tank. All holders were loaded correctly, and had a full complement of sheets (6 sheets for the MOD54 and B's Mk2, and 4 sheets for the SP445).

All images shot on Ilford HP5+ at box speed (ISO 400). Process was ILFOSOL 3 at 1+9, 20ºC for 6.5 minutes. Agitation by gentle inversion: 4-6 inversions for the first 30 seconds, then 4 inversions every minute (approx. 10-15 seconds). Drain 20 seconds before development time completed, followed by a 30 second stop bath, and then 3 minutes in ILFORD RAPID FIXER. Wash was a version of the ILFORD wash method. Dried in small 3D printed racks, and some in clips (I'm testing drying approaches too).

I photographed a pretty-evenly lit wall in my apartment, the camera at about two-feet away, with the lens focused at infinity, so the resulting image should be decently even gray.

Here are the results. These are simple hand-held camera "scans" with a Nikon Z and a Kaiser Lightbox, they are not perfectly squared off. I inverted them in Lightroom, and deliberately exaggerated the contrast to reveal the results of the processing.

Obviously I'm not thrilled with any of these results, but it should be noted that the actual test images I took and developed at the same time look much better with "normal" contrast and exposure settings in the scans, although the same processing variations can be seen if you push them around.

What I'm hoping for here is some feedback on which of these tanks/reels is the best starting point for further refinement, and if there are any tips on developers, developing practices, times and inversion techniques, to make the most of the best of these three options. (Ultimately I think I'll go back to tray processing, but that'll have to wait until I get a darkroom going again.)

MOD54
The most obvious issues here are the over-development around the areas where the negative touches the arms of the holder; and the larger irregularity on the right side where liquid flow must be difficult (I do not believe the sheets were touching or loaded wrongly: they felt good before development, and looked correct after, during washing). Perhaps a different agitation technique could help the latter, but I don't know how to avoid the arm-marks.


B's 4x5 developing reel Mk2
This reel shows some interesting swirl patterns, particularly on the bottom right, where I imagine the liquid flow is tightest due to the shape of the reel. Overall it's more even, and without the obvious issue of the MOD54's contact points. The test image developed this way looks decent.


Stearman Press SP-455
This seems to be the best of the group, although it's still blotchier than I would prefer. I would appreciate any tips from SP-445 users on agitation or developers. But if I can refine this process, I love the size and convenience of the tank. And am excited for the forthcoming SP-645 6-sheet variant.
(There's a nasty scratch on this sheet, caused by an ugly bit of plastic flashing on one of the SP-445 film holders which I hadn't noticed. I'll double check them in future before use, but that's a minor detail.)


Any thoughts or comments welcome.

[Michael R]

I can provide some personal feedback, having gone through a lengthy series of similar trials including trays, rotation etc. I’ll limit this for now and keep it simple.

Of the three daylight devices you tested, in my opinion the B’s reel is the one worth continuing with. I found that a suitably designed insert for a Patterson tank can actually give the nearest thing to perfect uniformity I have observed. However when it comes to sheet film I found the film itself to be an important variable, and also that one will need to empirically find the right agitation. First, in all of my testing (a wide array of processing techniques) I consistently found Kodak sheet films to be easier to use than Ilford when it comes to development uniformity. Second, the best results I got with the Patterson tank and sheet film insert (ultimately my own design which is somewhat different) was a mix of both Kodak and Ilford’s inversion/small tank instructions. 4-5 inversions in the first 10-15s, followed by 2 or 3 inversions each 30s. I’ve never used Ilfosol though, so all the usual caveats apply.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I'm actually surprised you got better results shuffling film in trays. I never could get decent results. A major factor was warming the film and developer near my fingers causing similar areas to the MOD54 image. Have you actually run the same test with trays in the past? Are your old results as good as you remember? Image detail seems to hide a lot of issues from mottling to minor dust.

I've recently noticed similar unevenness when processing mask film in trays (single sheet and just rocking the tray). The worst was 5x7 film in a 5x7 tray. Stepping up to an 8x10 tray was better. Much better results were obtained in a Jobo Expert drum. I've been meaning to test out the SP-455 for when I want intermittent agitation so I'm interested to see if someone has some tips to clean it up.

[Mick Fagan]

Somewhere on the web there was a clear SP-445 tank filled with water and a dye was inserted, enabling one to see swirling of the liquid. From this view it was determined that the main flow of the liquid virtually stopped somewhere around 20-30 seconds from the last inversion. Upon seeing this/reading this, I ensured that my 4x5" film inversion technique was three inversions starting at 30 seconds, with the last inversion happening at 40 seconds. This leaves 20 seconds of ever decreasing fluid swirling, then at 60 seconds another three inversions finishing at 10 seconds, and so on.

I pretty much exclusively use Ilford FP4+ and within reason my negatives are extremely evenly developed. Often I use a 65mm lens with a graduated neutral density filter and when there is a situation of clear sky across the entire top of a landscape negative, the consistency of the sky development is extremely even.

I have the original kickstarter version of the SP-445, it has been pretty much perfect from the get go.

The SP-445 also requires you to use a sideways inversion technique, check out their literature in this regard.

[esearing]

You have short developing times so your in and out cycles affect image development. Try a more dilute developer or one of the pyrocat/Pyro developers that require more surface time and less agitation. The first couple of minutes are where agitation really makes a difference, so if you have a 12-15 minute cycle time you are giving your image the best chance at making contact with the developer with a long gentle initial agitation. You might also find a 5 minute presoak improves the results. My personal favorite is the SP445 tank - but taco method in a reel tank is just as effective for single sheets.

[benr]

Thanks for all the replies and suggestions.

A quick update. I did two further tests: tray development (to check my memory of how well that worked, per Larry's suggestion); and the SP-445 with DD-X and more frequent, shorter agitation cycles. Again, these are essentially gray-card photos, and I've deliberately adjusted the contrast to show the unevenness in development at its worst.

Tray
This was in ILFOSOL 3 at 1+9, 20ºC for 6.5 minutes (as previous tanks were). Agitation was by cycling the 4x sheets from bottom to top for the first 45 seconds or so, then one "shuffle" every 30-45 seconds, counting five sheets each shuffle (there were only four in the tray) to ensure they all got equal time on top of the stack. This does look about as even as I recall, and shows no obvious issues aside from slight overdevelopment on the edges.


SP-445 with DD-X
DD-X 1+4 for 9 minutes. Agitation about 10-12 inversions for the first 30 seconds, followed by 4 alternating side inversions every 30 seconds. This felt like the best tank result, and closely matches my tray result. I think the longer standard development time of DD-X is probably a contributing factor, so I may ditch the ILFOSOL for 4x5. It's a little streaky in the direction of my inversions, so I'll add some left-to-right inversions as well as the front-to-back, and I think could get this to match the tray result, which is good enough for me.

[Mick Fagan]

Just a thought, it is possible to overfill the SP-445 slightly.

There is on my unit a small tab which equates to the top of the film (or maybe holder). This can be seen when looking down into the filler side.

I've developed quite a lot of film in my SP-445 and on the odd time I slightly overfilled I always felt the evenness wasn't quite right. Even though the films enlarged well. There was one time where I certainly overfilled and when inverting I had difficulty hearing and feeling the liquid moving around when inverting; mid developing I drained a small amount out and resumed developing.

Longer development times, mixed with quite good agitation make for good negatives; at least that is my experience. To that end I use D76 1:1 and my development time for Ilford FP4+ is between 12-14 minutes, dependent upon temperature.

Speaking of temperature, if you start at 24ºC with ambient at 18ºC then the drop is around 3.5ºC to 4ºC over 11 minutes. If using a print tray that holds some water at roughly 24ºC when you start developing and you return the Sp-445 to the tray in-between inversions, the temperature drop is about 1.5ºC. I usually measure around the ten minute mark.