Apparatus to aid using Expert Drum with roller base

[David Karp]

Great. I am glad this will help.

Make sure the drum is level when it is on the roller base (see various discussions in old threads).

This setup really makes it much easier to use the 3005 in this way.

[David Karp]

Wayne,

Eyeballing my negatives, I would say that using the roller base would allow me to use HP5+, FP4+ and Delta 100 at box speed. This is a gain of one stop compared to what I was seeing when using Thornton's 2 bath in a slosher and agitating for ten sec. each minute. I will do some more testing, but I think this is where I am going to end up.

[SW Rick]

Dave,
thanks for your post and related info. Do I understand you've been using Diafine (or similar) in the stock mix form, and that that has been working for you? I'd not thought of using it for LF, and have an Expert Drum. If you dilute it 1:1, as Sandy recommends, I would assume that you continue to use that, and not as a "one-shot" (because it's diluted)? If reused, I'd guess one might want to replace it sooner with fresh solution, since it's diluted?

Thanks,

Rick

[David Karp]

Hi Rick,

I did use Diafine when I started using LF cameras. It did work for me, and I used it in stock form, although I think I used 4 + 4 min. in each bath. Later, I switched to Barry Thornton's Two Bath developer, which is a variant of divided D23.

I have not yet tried the 1:1 dilution, so I cannot answer your question about reuse from personal experience. However, Sandy King has stated: "Since you are using such a small amount of the diluted developer with tube or drum type development I would recommend just discarding it after use. I am certain that it could be re-used several times but since the developer is so inexpensive anyway I would at least discard it at the end of the day ." (http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ht=bath+dilute) In his VC Camera article he stated that "The developer is quite inexpensive, so a more conservative approach of mixing fresh solutions after running fifty sheets or so through the soup, or after six months, is recommended." It appears that the diluted situation can be reused, but not for too long. Sandy King recommends that DD23 not be re-used.

I should state that I have run 25 sheets of film through the same 1L bottles of Thornton's Two bath via my rotary processing setup over the last few days, with consistent results.

[David Karp]

Just to follow up, I am really happy with this contraption of mine. Since building it, I have been going through my huge backlog of negatives, and have processed nearly 150 sheets of 4x5 in my 3010 drum, and probably 25-30 more sheets of 5x7 and WP film in the 3005. Everything works great, and the whole process is smoother and worry-free than it was before. The tank stays on the rollers, I can leave the room for a few minutes while the film is processing, the chemicals are easy to pour into the tanks, and my two arms seem to be able to easily accomplish all the necessary tasks to get the work done.

Regarding the two bath developer in a rotary setup: Sandy King recommends using Divided D23 diluted 1:1 for four minutes in each bath when used for rotary processing. My experience using Thornton's similar two bath formula supports this recommendation. Thornton recommended 5 minutes in each bath when processing sheet film using intermittent agitation. I found that the rotary processed negatives are too contrasty if the A and B baths are used full strength. This indicates that constant agitation has an impact on two bath developers, and that assertions to the contrary based on the idea that development stops once the developer absorbed into the emulsion during the A bath is exhausted are just plain wrong. Perhaps the constant agitation in the B bath causes some of the developer absorbed into the emulsion to go back into solution and work on the highlights.

At any rate, I have not done any testing, but based on my experience using Thornton's two bath for years, tray development with intermittent agitation using the two baths at full strength for five minutes in each bath resulted in a noticeably less contrasty negative than one processed at full strength for the same times with constant agitation. The constant agitation makes it easier to blow out the highlights, so I have to be more aware of the scene's contrast using the 2 bath with constant agitation than when I was tray processing the negatives.

I wondered whether the increased contrast was due to development in the A bath. However, I don't think much development takes place in the A bath, even with constant agitation, since I mix Thornton's formula with 40g/L of sodium sulfite in bath A and 40g/L in bath B (sort of like Vestal's DD76). Diluting this 1:1 leaves only 20g/L of sodium sulfite and nothing else to act as an accelerator. Maybe one of these days I will run a few sheets through the A bath only and see if any development occurs.

Thornton suggested that you could use a different B bath in N+1 or N-1 situations. I have not tried the N+1 with the rotary processor, but have tried the N-1 formula. A few of my 4x5 negatives from a recent trip came out with blown highlights when processed normally. I mixed up some B bath with 7g/L of Sodium Metaborate instead of the standard 12g/L used for N processing. I diluted this and the A bath 1:1 and processed the backup negatives for four minutes in each bath The results were very good. There was much more detail in the highlights and I think the negatives will print well.

I also found that the diluted baths are reusable for at least one day. I have run 30 4x5 sheets using the same baths with no problem, and discarded the diluted solutions at the end of the day.

[Ari]

David,
First I giggled; then I sat in admiration.
Then I felt a little sorry for your wife
Then I thought "Hmm, she's probably giggling too."

[David Karp]

Ahh, she is a photographer too, but not large format. She laughs, but she understands.

[Denis Pleic]

David, I don't know how I missed this one back in 2009 (must have been because of summer vacations) - but your contraption is great!
Looks like something that came from my garage - but my contraptions are usually way uglier, since I don't bother much with "beautification"

[Robert A. Zeichner]

The weakest link is the use of the hose clamps to hold the funnel to the dowel. It would be nice to easily remove the funnel from the dowel. I am working on this.

Funny that we independently discovered the same funnel. I made a little block out of wood to enable me to attach to a shelf. Perhaps this will give you an idea for a quick release attachment for your far more elegant set up.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I really like the idea of clamping the funnel to the wall for support. That would make dumping large trays back into the bottles much easier.

The roller base looks great too, and if my Jobo dies I'll probably be building something similar.