Large developing trays for roll paper 47" wide

[bob carnie]

Go to a plastics distributer, they can weld trays to your specs, not cheap but if you want to do it without issues one of the only ways to go.
otherwise as Kirk points out make large holding tanks and scroll .. I scroll 30 inch by 10 ft here all the time.
A single large tray for final hypo toning wash will be required .

for print heights 47 " by longer widths these trays will not fit small darkrooms and tiny budgets, if you have the room and cash give me a call as funny enough a friend of mine in Vancouver
is making much larger trays right now and you may be able to jump on his order.

[frotog]

Actually, while having two trays set up side by side is nice, if you work carefully only a single tray is needed in which case the op would need a sink a bit over 50" long and at least 18" deep (6" of extra width for gallon containers holding the rest of the processing baths). Using the dev. and stop as one-shots means you'll be manually dumping the tray after every step of your process. This is not a bad thing as it guarantees consistent chemistry activity - an essential aspect to getting to the fine print with large material. I see investing in a s.s. tray as a necessity, especially if working in a small space. At school where I learned mural technique we had the job shop weld half-inch acrylic sheet. They were heavy, slippery, sharp-edged and retained chemistry due to the double walling needed to make them stiff. I can't imagine working in acrylic is much cheaper than s.s. But certainly if you do go custom, your best off working with a local sheet metal job shop to avoid high shipping costs. I got four like the one pictured for less than a grand. They are a joy to work with. The gymnastics mat that it's set against was ideal for preprocessing warm-ups.

[bob carnie]

I will need to strongly disagree about the single tray method single shot ... which I believe is a poor concept even a small sizes, but completely impractical at large sizes.

In theory sounds great in practice not so great. cost, damage, contamination is only the beginning.

Where do I begin,,, chemistry to make a mural is in the gallons not small quantities, you need lots of chemistry to get on the paper for even development. = $$$$$ if single shot
Draining the chemicals is a major whoopass, try lifting a tray full of chemicals, how does one plan to get all the chems out fast enough and without sucking the paper down the drain at the same time...There is a reason for a stop bath and for those of us printing all the time with a time temp method a quick stop to development is required.
Each time you do a test strip, print , you will have to clean up the trays not to contaminate the next run.
For those giving a single tray advice I would say (have you done it before , with great success? if so I would like to be enlightened as I print for a living and these kind of details do not slip past me unnoticed. I make 30 x40 and larger every month for the last 15 years and this single tray method really sounds like bad advice}

I am being a bit of a d.... head here but I am only interested in hearing replys from those who actually do murals with a single tray and can honestly say they can get a
decent print for exhibition .

Actually, while having two trays set up side by side is nice, if you work carefully only a single tray is needed in which case the op would need a sink a bit over 50" long and at least 18" deep (6" of extra width for gallon containers holding the rest of the processing baths). Using the dev. and stop as one-shots means you'll be manually dumping the tray after every step of your process. This is not a bad thing as it guarantees consistent chemistry activity - an essential aspect to getting to the fine print with large material. I see investing in a s.s. tray as a necessity, especially if working in a small space. At school where I learned mural technique we had the job shop weld half-inch acrylic sheet. They were heavy, slippery, sharp-edged and retained chemistry due to the double walling needed to make them stiff. I can't imagine working in acrylic is much cheaper than s.s. But certainly if you do go custom, your best off working with a local sheet metal job shop to avoid high shipping costs. I got four like the one pictured for less than a grand. They are a joy to work with. The gymnastics mat that it's set against was ideal for preprocessing warm-ups.

[frotog]

I am being a bit of a d.... head here but I am only interested in hearing replys from those who actually do murals with a single tray and can honestly say they can get a
decent print for exhibition .

Bob, I've already stated that the one tray method was what I used for years before moving into my current drkrm. I printed several shows during that time and some of those prints were purchased by leading collectors and a few of them have ended up in permanent museum collections. These prints were no better than murals I've made using multiple trays. The one tray method yields a few small constraints that makes having a two tray set up moderately more convenient (namely having an extra one gallon graduate filled with stop in the sink) but it's otherwise a perfectly valid technique that has some surprising benefits. I'm sorry that this disturbs you to the extent that you doubt the veracity of my claim and that this experience makes you feel like a d.... head. Nonetheless, if you think that yours is the only valid technique you'll be interested in what I have to say. But please keep in mind that my interest in posting is simply to assist the op in making the appropriate choices to print murals in a common darkroom with limited space, not to take away from your business or reputation as a printer. I've since moved on from printing for others (thank goodness) and no longer have any skin in this game.

The tray I've pictured weighs just under 20lbs and measures 52" x 16" x 3". With a gallon of chemistry it weighs an additional 8-1/2 lbs and it's stiff and easy to handle. The beveled edges, in addition to providing comfortable support for your taking and receiving rolls of the paper scroll, make for a very convenient spout. I'm not sure about you but lifting this amount of weight is not a big deal. A large one gallon sized funnel attached to the sink's drain makes for fast and clean dumping of chemistry. I leave the roll of paper in the tray when dumping chemistry (don't worry, it won't fall out) - ne'er a problem there - but make sure to lift the roll out of the tray when introducing the stop bath. My chemistry exchange times using this method are never longer than 10 seconds - no problem there either.

Making tests is not as difficult as you think. I put fix in the mural tray and than use 16x20's resting on top of the s.s. mural tray to process my test strips. Easy peasy baby - don't get excited.

Lastly, contrary to what Bob says you do not need a lot of chemistry to get even development. One gallon of working dektol will have enough activity to develop two 42x60's that will be indistinguishable from one another in terms of amount of development (1 lt. working solution will have capacity for 2,560 sq. inches of paper - 42x60 = 2,520 sq. inches). Beyond chemistry capacity any issues with uneven development are due to poor technique - namely failing to wet the leading edge of the paper before beginning your scroll. As for the actual depth of chemistry.... one gallon is enough chemistry to give me a depth of about an inch. I've found that minimal chemistry reduces drag making for a more constant agitation than you would otherwise experience trying to drag it through a deeper trough. Also, if the bath is too deep there will be a greater amount of chemistry within the cylinder thereby increasing the chances of crimping or damaging the print.

Capiche?

And for all the naysayers....if you're friendly, I welcome you to stop by for a real time demonstration and (apparently) a much needed demystification of this process.

[bob carnie]

Frotog

All my comments were directed at single tray NON scrolling method, where the tray is bigger than the print size and one processes the paper flat. I was assuming that is what you were referring too and it is obvious that I did not read your post well enough , I apologize for that. After re - reading your post I see pretty much what I use , but I call them troughs, as opposed to tray.

Reading my posts you will see I do use a scrolling method as well , but I use 3 troughs that you refer to but use much more chemicals ( 40 liters per trough) as in a typical day we somtimes output 100 ft of 30 inch paper scrolled of the lambda and single trays for post development .. ie second fix flat tray, hypo flat tray and wash. These troughs would be impossible to dump unless of course I had the incredible Hulk as my assistant. As well with that type of paper usage we need the volumne and we need to replenish after each 10 ft run of paper. Btw that is a lot of paper and the only way we can do this is by using a rip unit on the lambda to auto nest the paper and we pull 10 ft at a time to keep consisten scrolling method with 3min 40 second scroll time.

So with clarification, if you are using a single tray method that is larger than the paper , and you are actually printing murals which I define as 24 x30 and up my comments above stand .
When I am working under an enlarger making single prints I use 40 x 50 x 3" trays full of chemicals and I have 8 of these in a row , plus a much larger wash sink. * I am having a vertical
slot washer made that can handle 8 -30 x40 at a time which btw is about the best I can do in a single day , 4 negatives two final prints off each. Toning is done on a separate day.

If you are not using a flat tray for final wash with constant water and dumping, I wonder how one would get a good fix and wash... why do I ask ??? when I first started the scrolling method I tested the retained fix in the paper and found unacceptable levels with normal scrolling... the only way I brought the levels to archival standard was by extensive scrolling in each final fix , hypo and wash which at the end of the day battered the paper beyond acceptable levels for me to sell to my clients.

A major lab in Europe, started doing Lambda silver prints in a Hostetter processor which is transporting the paper like scrolling through a series of baths, they were assured by the manufacturer that they would be getting proper archival standards. They DID NOT take the paper and second fix, wash in a tray. The show was hung in a space and within months the prints started yellowing.
Large paper sheets do not like extended lengths of time in liquid, they get very soft and fragile , and in the case of the new Art 300 the edges start frilling with extended washing.

This leads me conclude- the minimum amount of scrolling which does stress the paper , and as much gentle flat tray processing as possible, with keeping up with the same archival standards as one would apply to 16 x20 prints, is what I strive to balance for.

I do know that there are those who can put a kids swimming pool together and without proper enlarging equipment hang prints on a wall and call them art...But my comments are directed at the OP who is considering 47 inch wide prints and trays that obviously put him in an area of darkroom printing not for the simple one afternoon excursion.
In a past thread someone mentioned developing by moon light in huge trays in the backyard with a canopy over the trays .

A second room not in the darkroom is also a very serious option, with water supply and drain , one could expose in the common darkroom and process in the other. I did this for the first year of doing lambda fibres. We used BGM colour labs lambda with Agfa Classic , exposed the paper, drove the paper in a light tight box 10 km to my darkroom and processed the paper using the methods I described .
A second room idea was used by many large labs in the 50's and 60's .

Another method worth considering is a large sheet of plexi with slanted in a tray with drain that is connected to buckets with a pump to spray on the developer. I have heard of
people doing this in their bathrooms and setting up the enlarger in a spare bedroom.

All these will yield an acceptable prints > Yes I am answering this from a professional viewpoint which I do not apologize for and I also invite naysayers and I don't care if they are friendly or not,
to visit us one day while we are set up for murals and see how we make mural prints.

Bob, I've already stated that the one tray method was what I used for years before moving into my current drkrm. I printed several shows during that time and some of those prints were purchased by leading collectors and a few of them have ended up in permanent museum collections. These prints were no better than murals I've made using multiple trays. The
Capiche?

And for all the naysayers....if you're friendly, I welcome you to stop by for a real time demonstration and (apparently) a much needed demystification of this process.

[nolindan]

Well, there is Lloyd Erlick, in Toronto, who uses a single flat tray technique, though only for up to 24x30:

http://www.heylloyd.com/technicl/single.htm

I've not tried it myself.

[bob carnie]

I have heard of Lloyd and his single tray method but not sure he does murals which seems to be the OP's interest , but in the last twenty years have not seen his prints exhibited in Toronto so I cannot
comment on his prints.

Well, there is Lloyd Erlick, in Toronto, who uses a single flat tray technique, though only for up to 24x30:

http://www.heylloyd.com/technicl/single.htm

I've not tried it myself.

[nolindan]

I have heard of Lloyd ... in the last twenty years have not seen his prints exhibited in Toronto ...

I don't know what happened to him. The last internet activity was 2009 or so. The web site is still up, and googling shows he's still in the phone directory.

Anybody have any recent news?

His work can be seen here: http://www.heylloyd.com/toc.htm

As you say, it would be hard to see his single tray method working for a 4-foot mural.

[AF-ULF]

A bit off topic: I use the single tray method for printing platinum prints on full sheets of watercolor paper. I do this out of necessity as I have not found a way to transfer the large, wet sheets without tearing them. That should not be a concern with enlarging papers, however.

[ROL]

Also, processing flat will inevitably lead to a crimped print - even if you're using just one tray - most likely during agitation and most definitely in removing the flat print from the tray

Patently untrue. Processing flat up to any size you can carefully handle is perfectly safe. I do it all the time. My prints are not crimped and entirely free of emulsion defects (other than the lousy images contained therein ). Appreciating that the OP has actually questioned a larger 47", the functional limit for me in my lab for both enlarging and processing, as well as presentation, is 42" maximum. At a healthy 38"x19'12", I designed my sink (self–built) to be large enough to accommodate five of Cesco's largest trays end-to-end, fully capable of routinely processing 30"x40" prints, in the exact manner that I do standard sheet sizes (smaller trays). I do reuse water stop and rinse trays during toning and hypo–clearing.

I would like to see Bob's rolling method though.