I use just the Jobo tank for 6 sheets of 4x5 and hand inversion. Works great.
I use just the Jobo tank for 6 sheets of 4x5 and hand inversion. Works great.
I ran about eight 4x5 sheet films through the Jobo CPP2 in the 1500 drums and the results are very good. The 'standard' rotational chemistry volume is much more than what is needed for just two sheets of film, but I just collected the effluent after each step and then I was all set for the next run.
Did about 6 more films in the 1500 series drums but got 'burned' with two films that touched. This left a piece of emulsion on the back of one film and an undeveloped area on the other film.
On second look at the B&H site a brand new 3010 JOBO expert drum is only $275. This compares favorably with the high prices these things getting on ebay ($250!).
For film clips I decided on the JOBO clips the pierce the film with a small pin. However, after seeing that they are $6.50 APIECE! I wound up getting 24 hemostats on e-bay for $1.00 apiece including shipping. I think the hemostats will help get the films out of the JOBO drum and they do an excellent job of holding the film right by the edge. I already have a bunch of hemostats but I use them in the workshop, so now I have 24 that can stay in the darkroom.
Wow, that price for hemostats is hardly more than I've been paying for magnet-backed binder clips -- which aren't even stainless, and a few of mine are starting to make rust marks where they touch the film (I should be able to remove the rust and then lacquer over the jaws to prevent recurrence, but it's annoying to have to do so). OTOH, I don't have any place I could hang hemostats (though I suppose I could get a bunch of magnet-backed cup hooks).
If a contact print at arm's length is too small to see, you need a bigger camera. :D
My drying hanger...
Nice. Where would I get one (or two or three) of those? I bet they'd work well for hanging RC prints, too...
If a contact print at arm's length is too small to see, you need a bigger camera. :D
Jobo tank came and I think I was a little cavalier with my first few processing runs. I had at least two films that were put in the chambers backward. On another occasion I found 4 films in one chamber (instead of 2). Either they were stuck together when I put them in or I 'double loaded' the chamber.
After being more careful, the last few runs have been fine.
I wound up washing the film right on the Jobo processor. Right now I am doing it like this, all on the Processor:
Fix: 5min
Wash: 1 min
Permawash: 1 min
Wash: 1 min (500cc)
Wash: 1 min (500cc)
Wash: 2 min (500cc)
Wash: 2 min (500cc)
This gives me 6 min wash time with 4 changes of water.
My new hemostats came in the mail and they work fine. The fine tips allow me to pick the films out of the drum without any problem. The hemostat makes a nice 'handle' and I can then easily dip the film in a tray of photoflo and hang for drying.
After drying, the hemostat handle works great allowing me to slide the films into the archival plastic pages without ever touching the film.
The only flaws I see in your wash process are a) you don't need Permawash for film -- its function is to release hypo from paper fiber, and film doesn't need that (OTOH, it does no harm; if it makes you feel good, go ahead ), and b) I'd be concerned about adequate washing of the back sides of the films (when I process in tubes, I have to either fix in a tray or rinse in sulfite solution and wash out of the tubes to avoid dye residue on the base side), but if you don't see leftover antihalation dye in European films like Foma or Efke it's probably fine (no dye with those films would indicate adequate liquid access between film and drum chamber). I would suggest extending the fourth wash to four minutes; might not be necessary, but it'd do no harm and add only two minutes to your total process.
If a contact print at arm's length is too small to see, you need a bigger camera. :D
Am I missing something, I have used permawash for 20+ years for film.
I'm also not totally comfortable with the in-tank wash because of concerns about the back of the film, but I am trying it this way to see what happens. According to what I read about the expert drums they are supposed to be designed to allow fluid behind the film and I don't see any signs of un-even removal of the pink.
However, the films that were placed in the tank backwards had splotches of underdevelopment. So, although fluid may be able to get behind the film, not enough gets back there.
I'll have to search, but I remember a thread, either here or on APUG, about washing sheet film. Someone posted that they use the Gravity Works washer which seemed nice.
Whether you have dye problems with the base in contact with a surface is also dependent on film brand; Kodak and I think Fuji have the antihalation dye in a sub-layer on the emulsion side, apparently (it never, ever stays on the film), while Forte and Foma, at least, and I believe Efke as well, have it on the base side in the anti-curl coating.
I get my information on what does and doesn't need hypo clearing from David Vestal's "Art of Black and White Printing", from the mid-1980s, which included test data that proved to my satisfaction that hypo washes out of gelatin very quickly (the Ilford wash method for film is completely valid even with Kodak/Ilford/Fuji style superhard emulsion, acid fixer, and in complete absence of a sulfite afterbath), and it's only the paper fiber of fiber based prints that's a major concern. This information wasn't widely known 20+ years ago, however, and the methods that were standard in the 1980s were based on the knowledge that residual hypo was bad, but without complete information on why prints take so long to wash completely (and in absence of testing of film washing, for the most part -- no idea why it took 50+ years for someone to make those tests, from the time it was determined that residual fixer was the cause of most fading and staining to the time it was determined that gelatin washed clean very quickly).
I haven't gone through Vestal's full process to verify my own archival process for fiber prints (so far, I've done very few fiber prints, hopefully I'll be able to change that soon), but I'm confident in his data that suggests that paper, not gelatin, is what's hard to wash.
If a contact print at arm's length is too small to see, you need a bigger camera. :D
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks