Jobo 2553 tank and two 2409 reels; lets you develop 12 sheets of 4x5, it's foolproof and consistent.
I think the 2551 tank is for one reel of 6 sheets of 4x5.
Bob:
The very little bit of spill is of no concern to me. I develop over a sink. The Comb Plan is wonderful!
Expensive? I think not. I sold mine with band for under $150 on that auction site. IMHO it is way over-rated.
Zak Baker
zakbaker.photo
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter."
Ansel Adams
I initially had the same problem. I found that after loading the film, place the tank bottom against your chest and firmly press the lid, working around the edges with your fingers. The lid is a very subtle rubber, whichis good, but just needs an assist along the tank rim. This stopped my leaks completely.
First of all let me just kind of introduce myself since I am new to these forums and there is no specific forum for introductions. In a nutshell my name is Raul Carneiro Martins, I am portuguese, live in Portugal and have a 4x5 field camera, although I am considering getting into the 8x10 in the near future. I also do my own developing and printing.
Regarding the OP, I guess the choice of tank are dependent on the type of development carried out and the film process at hand. In my case I regularly use three approaches for sheet development:
- B&W film developed in Yankee tanks - they are similar to the OPs tank, rectangular parallelepiped, capable of withstanding 12 sheets and using up 1.6 l of chemicals
- B&W film in trays when a specific sheet requires contrast control
- Jobo 2509n spirals for color (C-41 and E-6)
Now, since I know that some guys here, LF Forums, really hate the Yankee tank I will shortly explain the reasons why it suits my developing style and works exceedingly well...for me. I soup my sheets in Rodinal-like developer doing semi-stand development that requires 20 min. with just 5s of agitation at the 10 min. mark. The sheets are just standing there. Development strategies that are more violent might not be as successful although I must confess that when I tried it, higher agitation that is, it worked very well. Agitation in these rectangular tanks must be carried out in a lateral fashion and if properly done is equivalent to inversions. In my MF I use AP tanks and inversion at the 10 min. mark getting equivalent results.
There is just one thing that I had to do after my first attempt with the Yankee tank - the rack that holds the sheets floats with the liquids, specially if it has bubbles, and this can give rise to uneven chemistry being applied to the sheets. I glued 4 rubber doorstops with the proper height on the bottom of the lid and that forces the rack to stay at the bottom. It has worked wonderfully and the glue, to my surprise, withstands the chemicals - after more than 50 uses they are still glued.
The 1.6 l is quite a volume, its true. However, I use Rodinal in dilutions over 1+100, and Rodinal by itself is cheap and has a very long shelf life. Even though I use demineralised water at some stages, I still find it very acceptable being cheaper than the C-41 and specially the E-6 even considering 5 l chemistry configurations.
If you can find one (they're more prevalent in the UK), a Paterson Orbital is good. It's basically a light proof tray, in which you can develop four 4x5" sheets at a time. It only requires 100-150ml of developing solution. Simple to load, even in a dark bag. You can get them with a manual base or motorised base.
Bookmarks