Best B & W film and developer for 4 x 5 newbie? Tank? Tray?

[NancyP]

I haven't hand developed film for a few decades, and back then I was using 35mm film and Paterson reels in tank. Suggestions?

[smithdoor]

I am using Yankee tank have since 1973 works great take 1/2 gal is the down side
For just one sheet I use AP Classic 2 reel tank I just take out the reel and put one 4x5 film inside only need 1 liter

Dave

[rjmeyer314]

I also use a Yankee tank for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4, 3 1/4 x 4 1/4, and 4x5. I've always gotten good results.

[Pawlowski6132]

how do you agitate a Yankee tank?

[NancyP]

Yankee tanks are the wide rubber tanks with floating lids, and with matching steel hangers. In the ancient days, research x-ray film got developed in tanks, and agitation was by dipping. That sounds as if it will need to be in a dedicated space in a sink or countertop. I am using shared space (admittedly not used very often). I will have to look into this. The large volume would require a large brown collapsible bottle if I wanted to pack up the kit and store it in a cabinet or in another room.

[Bill_1856]

I prefer tray development.

[Bill_1856]

Start with Tri-X film and D-76 developer. Can't go wrong -- no need for fancy, exotic stuff.

[Leigh]

Yankee tanks are the wide rubber tanks with floating lids, and with matching steel hangers.
The Yankee tank I have is a plastic (?Bakelite?) cube with an internal adjustable 12-sheet film holder.

It's about 6" on a side (I don't have it here to measure). The film holder is adjustable for different sizes.

It's in stock at B&H, about $40:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/63620-REG/Yankee_YACF45_Cut_Film_Daylight_Developing.html

- Leigh

[Jeff Dexheimer]

I started with trays. Moved onto tanks and drums. Now I am back to trays. Trays take some practice, but I like the full control they give me. The others are not bad by any means, I just prefer the tactile feel of trays. Other methods work well too. Best thing to do is research various methods people use and find the one that sounds most suitable to you.

[Leigh]

To answer the OP's original question...

The best 4x5 film by a wide margin is Fuji Neopan Acros, with a speed of 100 ASA.
Don't confuse Acros with other Fuji Neopan films. Acros is a totally different film.
It's only available in 100 speed, and in formats 4x5 and smaller. No 8x10 unfortunately.

Acros has a very fine grain structure, yielding negatives of excellent detail.

The film is very forgiving of over/under exposure. It has the highest reciprocity ratings I've seen, with no compensation required for exposures up to 2 minutes, and only 1/2 stop extra required from 2 to 10 minutes.

For developer, I would suggest Diafine. It's a two-part developer, which means an additional step in the process.
However, you CANNOT use a pre-soak with Diafine, which reduces the number of steps by 1, and you're back to even.

Diafine does not care about time or temperature*, making it ideal for tray development, and for
people who have not yet developed tight process controls and timing.

Also, Diafine is a compensating developer that wants absolute minimal agitation.
This compensation along with Acros' very high tolerance to over-exposure makes it virtually
impossible to blow highlight detail when using this combination.

- Leigh

*Temperature of the two parts should be the same, in the range of 70 degrees to 85 degrees F.
Processing time is five minutes in each part.

[smithdoor]

That is the one have use since 1973 works great and I do not need a darkroom just low cost bag to load the film

Dave


The Yankee tank I have is a plastic (?Bakelite?) cube with an internal adjustable 12-sheet film holder.

It's about 6" on a side (I don't have it here to measure). The film holder is adjustable for different sizes.

It's in stock at B&H, about $40:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/63620-REG/Yankee_YACF45_Cut_Film_Daylight_Developing.html

- Leigh

[NancyP]

The tray development seems intuitive but has the issue of temperature control if one doesn't have a water jacket/ sink arrangement.
Has anyone used the MOD54 rack that fits inside a standard Paterson 3 x 35mm reel tank?

THe idea of processing sheets one at a time by curling them up and putting them in a reel tank seems easy. I have an old steel Paterson 2 x 35mm reel tank.

I am also thinking that the ideal system should use small amounts of solution.

[Leigh]

The tray development seems intuitive but has the issue of temperature control if one doesn't have a water jacket/ sink arrangement.
Nancy,

Please go back and read my post #10, where I point out that Diafine does not care about temperature, making it perfect for tray development.


I am also thinking that the ideal system should use small amounts of solution.
I failed to mention in that earlier post that Diafine is replenished by adding fresh solution to both parts A and B, in volume equal to the amount of Part A absorbed into the film emulsion. That's all.

My normal routine is to mix a stock volume large enough for my largest processing container.

I then mix an additional quart of Part A and Part B, putting those in separate "replenishment" bottles. Those provide the small volume required to replenish after each run.

Both parts keep for years in both fresh and used states.

- Leigh

[Andrew O'Neill]

Look into a set of BTZS tubes. Very economical way to develop film. For a developer, I use pyrocat-hd, which I mix from scratch and is very economical.

[Regular Rod]

.....................It's only available in 100 speed, and in formats 4x5 and smaller. No 8x10 unfortunately.
.........

Leigh, it is available in 8x10.

RR

[John Kasaian]

I suggest Ilford FP-4+ and D-76 or the Ilford equivalent. Tray development.

[Leigh]

Leigh, it is available in 8x10.
Not here in the US. I know it's available in Japan, but I don't live in Japan.

- Leigh

[Regular Rod]

I haven't hand developed film for a few decades, and back then I was using 35mm film and Paterson reels in tank. Suggestions?

Tray is best BUT there is a way of getting all the advantages of a tray combined with all the convenience and comfort of a daylight tank.

http://freepdfhosting.com/f640343f29.pdf

What developers did you use before? Did you like the results from them? If you did then it might be best to start off with what you already know.

RR

[Regular Rod]

Oh that's a shame Leigh. Mine came from Japan but sent to here in the UK. Is it not possible to get it delivered to the USA?

RR

[Leigh]

There is at least one retailer in Tokyo that will ship orders to the US, but the total cost
with shipping is extremely high.

I don't want to digress. This thread is specifically about 4x5.

- Leigh

[ROL]

The tray development seems intuitive but has the issue of temperature control if one doesn't have a water jacket/ sink arrangement.

You don't need that kind of temperature control for personal developing from 6 to 20 minutes, especially if you're in a temp controlled environment (i.e., inside) as almost all B/W is standardized at 20ºC (i.e., room temperature). I don't use water jackets with open trays, and I'd be surprised if many here do either. Any real temperature variations will likely either be insignificant or built into your work flow as you learn to process.

Nothing could be simpler and less inexpensive than trays. You might as well learn to do it (easy) before investing in other, more involved, techniques. At the very least, it will give you a reliable method to fall back on if/when your tanks, rollers, cap, etc. fail you (i.e., see voluminous threads here).

Almost any film is good with a general purpose developer like XTOL. See the Massive Development Chart (http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php).

[Karl A]

My approach when I started was to develop a single sheet at a time in trays. Tri-X in D-76. All at room temperature. It's a pretty foolproof method. And I haven't found a more reliable one yet. I learned how to do it from here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.pdf

No fancy equipment needed.

[BetterSense]

There are many films out there which will do fine, but you asked about the best. Probably the best film ever made is TMAX 400. It's just amazing.

Lots of developers will do, but Xtol is some good stuff. Like D76 but slightly faster, less toxic and more stable.

I started with trays, tried daylight tanks, tried hangers, and am back to trays. It takes skill to avoid scratches.

[angusparker]

FP4 film and XTOL developer: a good combination of forgiving film and fine detail developer that is non-toxic and won't stain your sink!

[Leigh]

XTOL is probably the worst developer on the planet. Even regular users have problems with it.

Don't believe me? Search the archives.

- Leigh

[angusparker]

XTOL is probably the worst developer on the planet. Even regular users have problems with it.

Don't believe me? Search the archives.

- Leigh

I think that might be before Kodak discontinued the smaller packages. XTOL can also die after a few months after mixing and may be unreliable if diluted. So I guess I should caveat - use it fresh-ish, use it one shot, and use it as Stock solution and you should be fine.

[cjbroadbent]

My approach when I started was to develop a single sheet at a time in trays. Tri-X in D-76. All at room temperature. It's a pretty foolproof method. And I haven't found a more reliable one yet. I learned how to do it from here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.pdf

No fancy equipment needed.

Agreed. My darkroom is a loo, a 5x6 tupperware container, two plastic cups and a laxative measure.

[Ed Bray]

Nancy, I am going to go against popular opinion here and suggest initially using trying a Paterson Super System 4 Universal Tank and try the Taco Method (google it). The tank is just very slightly too small for the film and seems to squash it slightly when you close the lid but with no ill effects (the use of a 3 reel tank stops this but needs more chemicals to fill the tank). This is a very low cost option for daylight processing as a Paterson universal tank can be picked up very cheaply.

The negatives obtained from this method are as good as anything I have had from using the Jobo Expert Drums or any other method I have used.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

Ha, so you see there are as many "best" combinations as there are people. For me trays are ideal. My favorite film is ilford delta 100 because for my purposes i want fine grain, but i also have to balance cost. I find for the price, delta 100 the best bang for the buck. I don't have any fancy temperature control equipment either. I just mix my chemicals to slightly above 20 c. By the time I am done they are slightly below 20 c, and thus I estimate the average temp was close enough to 20 c. For developer, I haven't found the perfect one. I usually try one and stick with it for a while to get used to it. Then I switch to something else to see if it gets me a "better" development. So the answer is really there is no best. There are many choices, all of which are good in their right.

[DG 3313]

I use a Beseler 8x10 color drum on a motor base. It holds two sheets of 4x5 at a time. Once the negs. are loaded the rest can be done with the room lights on. The drum needs 2oz of chemistry to cover the film (or paper if you are making prints) but, I use 3oz to prevent streaks.

I am using expired Ilford Fp4 or fresh T-max 100 in D-76 @1:1.

[Leigh]

Whenever you ask what is "best", for a number of responses N, you will have N+1 opinions.

The +1 is your original opinion regarding the answer.

- Leigh

[John Koehrer]

Since everyone has the "best"method or developer/film combination a bit of experimentation's in order.

Start with the most economical, tray then taco, mod 54, Unicolor and or Jobo.
The good thing is if you find a comfortable system you really won't have to further experiment.

[ROL]

XTOL is probably the worst developer on the planet. Even regular users have problems with it.

Don't believe me? Search the archives.

- Leigh

FWIW, I don't use XTOL, I use Pyro. But the OP is a neophyte, and XTOL is a good non-toxic developer for beginners.

And no, I don't believe you. Maybe it's "the worst developer on the planet", because it's used by the worst developers on the planet. :D

[Leigh]

... XTOL is a good non-toxic developer for beginners.
Non-toxic???

I've been using standard developers for over 50 years, and I'm not dead yet.


Maybe it's "the worst developer on the planet", because it's used by the worst developers on the planet. :D
Problems with XTOL have been reported by some of our most experienced members.

- Leigh

[Oren Grad]

HP5 Plus in D-76, in a Jobo Expert drum (3006 or 3010 for 4x5) - preferably on a Jobo processor, but a manual roller base will do if necessary.

As is obvious by now, there's no consensus. Pick something that's within reach for you financially and logistically, and have at it. You may get lucky, or you may need to try a few different methods to find one that's comfortable for you.

PS: Should've added, BTZS tubes would be my next choice. Tubes and drums are especially handy if you want to minimize the amount of solution needed, though it's important to remember that the minimum is also determined by the amount of active developer needed per surface area of film. Especially for diluted developers, the minimum solution volumes that will physically cover the film in an Expert drum or BTZS tube may not be enough to provide adequate amounts of the developer compound(s).

[NancyP]

Thanks. I am a sheet film photography newbie (I have developed hundreds or thousands of radiographic-type films, mostly by automated machine). Tray method may be just fine. I like the idea of the taco method. Precise temperature control is easy for me in a tank-based method, I have access to research-grade waterbaths. An Ilford choice would be most economical for a beginner, $1.32 per sheet in 25 sheet pack, versus Kodak at $1.70 per sheet in 50 sheet pack and Fuji at $2.83 per sheet in a 20 sheet pack. I expect to commit the usual beginners' mistakes that result in total film loss (forgot to pull dark slide, forgot to reset shutter, etc), and I think I will ruin the cheapest sheets first. Fuji interests me, though, because a relative of mine is in semi-retirement as the color management authority for Fuji. Discount???

Fun factoid: The commercial source for 99% of ornamental pond koi fish (giant orange, white, yellow, gray goldfish bottom feeders, basically) is .... Fuji. Apparently in order to counteract the NIMBY (not in my back yard) sentiment where they wanted to site the factory, the Fuji management devised a set of koi ponds into which factory effluent was supposed to flow. Fish grew just fine, nature took its course, more fish resulted....voila, a side business. The grown pedigreed koi are quite valuable (up to $10,000.00?) , and are inventoried to the single fish on the Fuji tax returns. The Fuji koi ponds are a tourist attraction. Think of that when you whip out your Velvia!

[Rick Rycroft]

Isn't the phrase "in my opinion" missing in these statements?


[The best 4x5 film by a wide margin is Fuji Neopan Acros, with a speed of 100 ASA.] [XTOL is probably the worst developer on the planet.]


Nancy, you will likely work out what works for yourself due time. By all means head the advice offered and don't worry if you are not using the "the best 4x5 film" and you are using the "worst developer." You may find it to be a combination that is best for you.

Regards,
Rick

[jp]

Mod54 works if you use inversion agitation with your paterson tank but invert gently.

I use Combiplan tanks which use about 1L of chemicals, with pyrocat hd, water for stop, and tf4 for fixer. It also works in daylight.

Plenty of good options suggested. XTOL is good, but I haven't found it to be to vastly superior to other options like d76. I like liquid concentrate developers so I don't have to mix powders in the darkroom.

[Leigh]

Isn't the phrase "in my opinion" missing in these statements?
All posts on an internet forum are the opinion of the poster. That should be obvious to anyone.

The interesting thing about internet fora is that everybody has different education, training, skills, and experience.
Replies to questions from any poster reflect that unique personal background.

If they're the opinion of someone else, that is usually stated.

- Leigh

[StoneNYC]

Nancy,

You're going to get 1 million answers for this question, I've noticed that everyone seems to insist on including some kind of developer with their suggestions for you, which I think is silly because obviously you been shooting a long time and already probably have a preferred developer.

In any case, I would agree that Acros100 is amazing, but yes it's expensive and even though it's my favorite film for that speed, I still use something else in anything I can get away with to save costs.

I would suggest if you want something that's of quality, but had a good price just choose something that Ilford makes, any of their sheet film will be about the same price.

Don't ever get those tanks mentioned at the beginning of the thread, they leak all over the place with chemistry and can give uneven development. Because they aren't air tight the smell of the fixer is unbearable (and probably not healthy) but that's a personal choice.

The MOD54 works jus fine (the new version, don't buy it second hand because it might be the first generation which wasn't as good) get it from B&H and it will be the new version. I find it MUCH easier to load than the JOBO 2509n reels that the rotary tanks take, but yes as someone else said, you should agitate a little more gently just to be on the safe side.

If you really want to cut costs (just to be on the band wagon... Adox Adonal (Rodinal) is the cheapest way to go chemistry wise.

And yes I've seen many complained of issues with XTOL despite lots of people saying positive things as well.

I've never had ANY development issues with the MOD54 except a small scratch mark on the non-emulsion side when I first started because I was rigorously agitating... Once I was gentile, no issues, and never had any fill "dislodge".

Always ask your advice giver if they have actually had experience with the thing they are talking about, many here like to talk but many have never used what they talk about (I'm guilty if it sometimes) but I've used all the things I've talked about except XTOL to which I'm only confirming info I've ready posted by others regarding problems.

Best of luck!

[Bruce Osgood]

For 4x5 I have setteled on Delta 100 and eventually Xtol 1:1. I have been thru all the variations of X (Tri, Double, etc and all the Ilford HP's). And I ran the gauntlet of developers from the leading commercial to exotic home brews.

I've been satisified with this combination and will wait for a reason to change.

[alavergh]

As a beginner, I used a film that I heard about and a developer that was easy to mix and use. I chose D-76 and Fuji Acros. Then I started using TMax 100, or whatever the name is for the specific current stock. Then I started using TXP320 and I like the extra speed and forgiveness.

Oh yeah, and I use trays because I sort of inherited them from a friend of the family and other methods either cost too much for me, or use more chemistry that I can afford.

[Tim Meisburger]

Paterson Orbital and D-23 or Rodinal, because I am cheap. For film I use the cheapest I can get, Ilford FP4 in bulk in the US or Shagghai if I can get it in China, 'cause I'm cheap...

PS: I just noticed the spelling error, but decided not to change it 'cause I kind of like it.

[Keith Tapscott.]

I would buy a Jobo tank with a 2509n reel for 4x5 film sheets and inversion agitation.
This will more like what you were used to when you used Paterson tanks for 35mm films.
http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/products/3756/jobo-developing-tank-2520-multitank-2

You will not go far wrong with films like Tri-X, FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus and a standard developer like ID-11 (D-76). There are also good film developers sold as liquids.

[StoneNYC]

I would buy a Jobo tank with a 2509n reel for 4x5 film sheets and inversion agitation.
This will more like what you were used to when you used Paterson tanks for 35mm films.
http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/products/3756/jobo-developing-tank-2520-multitank-2

You will not go far wrong with films like Tri-X, FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus and a standard developer like ID-11 (D-76). There are also good film developers sold as liquids.

Yea but you're wasting a lot of developer if you do that... 1500ml if you do that...

[Keith Tapscott.]

Yea but you're wasting a lot of developer if you do that... 1500ml if you do that...It does say 1500ml on the tank, but when I first used it I filled the tank with enough water to cover the 2509 reel and I found that 1200ml was enough.

[StoneNYC]

It does say 1500ml on the tank, but when I first used it I filled the tank with enough water to cover the 2509 reel and I found that 1200ml was enough.

Still more then 1L

[Ari]

It does say 1500ml on the tank, but when I first used it I filled the tank with enough water to cover the 2509 reel and I found that 1200ml was enough.


Still more then 1L

You can roll the Jobo tank in a sink full of water and use only 270mL, as per Jobo's recommendation.

Nancy, to sart, buy any Kodak or Ilford offering, there is less chance of getting a bad batch of film that way.
Then buy a normal developer like D-76, HC-110 or the comparable Ilford developers.
Develop according to manufacturer's recommendation, or try Massive Development Chart: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php
If you're unhappy with the results, make the necessary changes in exposure and/or development.
It's a fun process, but it's still a process.

[koh303]

It does say 1500ml on the tank, but when I first used it I filled the tank with enough water to cover the 2509 reel and I found that 1200ml was enough.


You "only" need 1250ml to fill the multitank 2, but that is because this tank is not designed to be used with inversion processing.
When used as it was intended, in rotation, it only needs a minimum of 270ml of liquid.

[StoneNYC]

You "only" need 1250ml to fill the multitank 2, but that is because this tank is not designed to be used with inversion processing.
When used as it was intended, in rotation, it only needs a minimum of 270ml of liquid.

That's my point, sure you can roll it on the counter I guess, but for people starting out, who might already have a Paterson (which is a heck of a lot cheaper) a MOD54 is much easier and cheaper by far than a JOBO setup... $75 for a Paterson setup, over $200 for JOBO...

[koh303]

That's my point, sure you can roll it on the counter I guess, but for people starting out, who might already have a Paterson (which is a heck of a lot cheaper) a MOD54 is much easier and cheaper by far than a JOBO setup... $75 for a Paterson setup, over $200 for JOBO...

Stone, on the other forum you were lamenting folks who chime in with what they do even when its totally irrelevant, and on top of it, your entire statement is subjective at best, and more then that its just erroneous.

The paterson/mod54 combo does not cost 75$ (though that would be a good deal) but is closer to 100$. A jobo multitank with 2509 reel does not cost 200$, but closer to 130$.

Loading the mod54 and then wondering if all sheets are still in the slots when you are done can be trickey even for a well versed user.
Rolling a plastic tube on a flat surface - well most kids can do that.

Assumptions are a bad thing. why do you assume people starting out have a PTP116? it is by far the least common paterson tank, who needs a 3 roll tank anyways?

[John Kasaian]

With conventional B&W film I never stress over temps so long as the temps in all your chemicals are the same---I keep a gallon of distilled water for dilution in the same locker where I store my stock solutions so they are all at the same room temperature.
It works for me.

[StoneNYC]

Stone, on the other forum you were lamenting folks who chime in with what they do even when its totally irrelevant, and on top of it, your entire statement is subjective at best, and more then that its just erroneous.

The paterson/mod54 combo does not cost 75$ (though that would be a good deal) but is closer to 100$. A jobo multitank with 2509 reel does not cost 200$, but closer to 130$.

Loading the mod54 and then wondering if all sheets are still in the slots when you are done can be trickey even for a well versed user.
Rolling a plastic tube on a flat surface - well most kids can do that.

Assumptions are a bad thing. why do you assume people starting out have a PTP116? it is by far the least common paterson tank, who needs a 3 roll tank anyways?

Not sure where you get your figures but just a JOBO tank without a reel coats over $100 on it's own, plus $65 for the 2509n, and you need the tube thing which is separate for JOBO

Paterson tank with 2 reels and tube is $30 and MOD54 is $50.

Anyway that's in the US where I am, not sure where the OP is etc. Hope she can figure out her best choice.

Not sure how anything I've said is irrelevant.

[Michael Cienfuegos]

Not sure where you get your figures but just a JOBO tank without a reel coats over $100 on it's own, plus $65 for the 2509n, and you need the tube thing which is separate for JOBO

Paterson tank with 2 reels and tube is $30 and MOD54 is $50.

Anyway that's in the US where I am, not sure where the OP is etc. Hope she can figure out her best choice.

Not sure how anything I've said is irrelevant.

I don't know about you, but the MOD54 has been a total nightmare for me. I have much better luck with a Unicolor Print drum. I can get four 4x5 sheets developed without worrying about whether or not they stayed in the slots.

[DrTang]

just the other day I tried the hc100 1:100 dilution / let it sit for an hour deal

OH MAN

it worked great (FP4)

coming from a shake the can every 30 seconds / 6 minutes school of film developing


how sweet is that..but the gunk in - shake a bit..then go make myself a couple manhattans and kick back



so..now I'm scheming to build some kind of light tight box - possibly scavaging a film changing bag for the arm hole deals
.. and using hangers and hard rubber tanks..I bet I can develop 10 sheets at a time (5 hangers,film back to back)

and without all that shaking and dunking stuff

[koh303]

Not sure where you get your figures but just a JOBO tank without a reel coats over $100 on it's own, plus $65 for the 2509n, and you need the tube thing which is separate for JOBO

Paterson tank with 2 reels and tube is $30 and MOD54 is $50.

Anyway that's in the US where I am, not sure where the OP is etc. Hope she can figure out her best choice.

Not sure how anything I've said is irrelevant.

Whats "that tube thing"?
You can get a multitank 2 for 87$ + 2509 for 45$ = 132$, thats all you need.

Just for kicks, a Paterson tank on BH - 32$, MOD54 at BH - 60$ = 92$, or 90$ if you buy the combo from them, but even by your math - 30+50=80, not 75. Ad shipping/tax when applicable.

[Harold_4074]

This is a long thread, but scanning through it I didn't see any mention of where the OPs photographic interests might lie.

For occasional work with small quantities of film, trays are hard to beat, particularly if one wants to experiment with different materials, times, etc. Tanks are better if the amount of film processed each time is large enough to justify the greater chemical usage, space, etc.

General photography not involving extremes can be handled perfectly well by any of several "standard" combination. Tri-X and FP4+ and HP5 are good, reliable, general-purpose films; D76, HC-110 or Rodinal will all handle pretty much anything "usual". Huge enlargements, severe contrast, very low light and other even less typical conditions call for more specialized materials, although most of those (pyro developers, two-bath chemistries, and such) can also be used for general work once their "personalities" are understood.

There is a lot to be said for one-shot chemistry (HC110 dilution B, for example) particularly if the ratio of tilm to solution can be held constant. For single sheets is a tray, this is no problem, but with gallon-sized tanks the learning curve may be fairly flat unless cost is no object or someone else is paying for the film.

And speaking of learning curves, there is something to be said for using a relatively cheap film (the Arista Edu stock, for instance) and one-shot developer just for working out all of the "kinks" of large format, reserving name-brand film for what are expected to be "keepers". (Proficiency is often gained in some proportion to the number of mistakes made.)

Finally, to maintain the long-standing tradition of Internet pontification:

I use FP4+ and PMK for just about everything, if the lighting is suitable (there are better combinations if shadow speed is important) but keep HC110 on hand in case I am going to process film for one of my kids or am making just a "record" shot. 4x5 is nearly always processed in one-liter tanks, using hangers; I have four tanks (because FP4+ in PMK calls for a presoak) and always do four sheets at a time so that developer exhaustion isn't a variable.

A twelve-quart stock pot of temperature-adjusted water is enough for one batch of film, including the wash step; although I have a dedicated darkroom, I could store everything needed to develop film (all four tanks, the PMK or HC-110 stock, thermometer,measures, stirrer, hangers, film clips and bottle of working fixer) inside the stock pot :)

[koh303]

I bet I can develop 10 sheets at a time (5 hangers,film back to back)

and without all that shaking and dunking stuff

The Jobo 3010 will process 10 sheets, use less chemicals, and if you treat your self to a beseler motor base you dont even have to use your hands to use it - and all in broad daylight.

[Leigh]

...I bet I can develop 10 sheets at a time (5 hangers,film back to back)
How do you clear the anti-halation coating on the back of the film?

- Leigh

[DrTang]

Hmmmmm

I remember doing it years ago and it wasn't a problem


that could be because I was using a pull out/dunk back in style of developing that circulated enough dev and fix between the sheets

with the sitting in developer for an hour thing..it might be a problem

which cuts my production in half

Hmmmmmmmmm

still might be worth it if only for the Manhattans


re: the Jobo 3010...10 5x7 sheets?..or five?

also.. that is plenty big money for that set up



How do you clear the anti-halation coating on the back of the film?

- Leigh

[koh303]

re: the Jobo 3010...10 5x7 sheets?..or five?

also.. that is plenty big money for that set up

3010 is for 10 sheets of 4X5, the 3006 is for 6 sheets 5X7. 499$ for bliss ,perfection and peace of mind is a small price to pay :)

[StoneNYC]

How do you clear the anti-halation coating on the back of the film?

- Leigh

It comes off in the wash if not before

[Leigh]

It comes off in the wash if not before
That's assuming the films are not stuck together.

That can happen if the backing material gets moist but not wet enough to dissolve.

- Leigh

[StoneNYC]

That's assuming the films are not stuck together.

That can happen if the backing material gets moist but not wet enough to dissolve.

- Leigh

Don't be dense, just run it under water if there's any residual, it's just the anti halation layer it comes right off ...

[welly]

There's a Japanese eBay seller (with plenty of positive feedback) selling 8x10 Acros at $179 a pack with shipping to the US for only $24.

[koh303]

There's a Japanese eBay seller (with plenty of positive feedback) selling 8x10 Acros at $179 a pack with shipping to the US for only $24.

So is he selling it for 179$ or 24$? :)

[welly]

So is he selling it for 179$ or 24$? :)

Yes, excuse my rather cryptic reply there :) The box (20 sheets) of film is $179 and the postage is $24! So $203 in total.

[StoneNYC]

Link?

[koh303]

Yes, excuse my rather cryptic reply there :) The box (20 sheets) of film is $179 and the postage is $24! So $203 in total.
syntactic ambiguity happens to the best :)

[NancyP]

Tray developers, what size tray for one to six 4 x 5 negatives? The "5 x 7" tray or the "8 x 10" tray? Obviously the smaller tray gets you a smaller volume of chemicals and perhaps deeper chemicals, but might make shuffling negatives either easier or more difficult to do without scratching.

I have landscapes in mind as my main subject, at least at first.

[Harold_4074]

The usual rule of thumb is "one size larger than the film" which would suggest 5x7 trays. In my limited experience with shuffle development, an 8x10 tray let the films slide around and it was very difficult to keep them in order. I have, on occasion, used two or more 5x7 trays of developer, one sheet per tray; this allows agitation by rocking and avoids having to pick up the film except to remove it from the tray.

Something to consider is the ratio of film area to developer volume; this may dictate a larger tray than you would otherwise use, just to avoid exhaustion of the developing agents when you process multiple sheets simultaneously.

Again, the amount of film that you contemplate using, and whether or not you expect to adjust development as you go, will determine what equipment suits you best. Tanks offer excellent uniformity, chemical economy and convenience, at the expense of sheet-to-sheet flexibility. This will become clear the first time you process a "tank load" and find out that every sheet would have benefited from 15% more development time...:(

If you have access to at least one 4x5 hanger, you can take it with you to various stores and look for any non-corrodable (i.e., plastic or stainless) container that will accept the hanger with a liquid depth about a half inch above the top film clip, and ideally about three inches wide (to hold four hangers at once).

I don't know if the 1-liter stainless film tanks that I use are still made, but in any event they would probably be over $100 each nowadays, which is simply not economic.

[Ken Lee]

You might find this article helpful: Plastic Storage Containers for Sheet Film Development (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/devtray.php)

[BetterSense]

I prefer 8x10 trays for 4x5 film. I develop up to 10 sheets at a time with the shuffle method. It does take concentration and patience to avoid scratches but the results are very even.

[Harold_4074]

Perhaps BetterSense would describe his technique.

The shuffle method that I learned (in the 1960s!) involved putting the sheets in at thirty second intervals, rotating the stack at one minute intervals, and then taking them out in the same order, also at thirty second intervals. The press photographer who taught me this claimed that he could do ten sheets at once, something like eight minutes each for thirteen minutes total time. Obviously, losing track of the first sheet would have created some interesting negatives. When I tried it, I tended to get the sheets out of order unless I used a small tray, and then scratching was a problem. At 25 cents per sheet (those were the days!) it seemed clear that the method was just not for me. At the current dollar-plus-per-sheet prices, I'm pretty sure that I could abandon one-shot developer, use gallon tanks with hangers, and still come out ahead.

And how one would do this while wearing gloves is beyond me!

[Leigh]

One way to keep track of the first-in-stack is to rotate it 180 degrees, so the notches are on the other end.

What I do is use Diafine, because the time is absolutely irrelevant as long as it's over 3 minutes. I use 5.

- Leigh

[NancyP]

You folks are great! Thanks for the info. The "plastic food storage box" is certainly ubiquitous, I have used these, plus stainless food service hot table units, and glass baking dishes (great for dyeing gels and hybridizations) as research lab-ware, not to mention the classic "seal-a-meal", which worked well for hybridizing radioactive labels. I could eyeball the various "retired" (stress cracks) straight-walled centrifuge tubes for in-dark tube development trial. Hobby, meet day job - day job, meet hobby.

Someone above mentioned "Arista Edu" film, which seems to be 60 to 80 cents a sheet for ISO 100, 200, 400. The freestyle.biz site also carries Fomapan and ADOX brands, all under one dollar a sheet - never heard of these. Are these three brands any good?

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes the Arista films are fine. They are rebranded from other manufacturers, and who the source is varies over the years. At one point it was Ilford Fp4. Someone may know what it is now.

[Harold_4074]

Gosh, Nancy--if I'd realized that you were a fellow Lab Rat I would have shown you a picture of the narrow 5x7 tank that I made one afternoon using acrylic from the local home improvement store. You could almost certainly make a 4-sheet version for 4x5, and then you would be all set :) (I'll try to remember to make a snapshot this evening. It ain't pretty, but it works.)

Regarding cheap film: if you want to really play for pennies, look at the extensive postings on x-ray film. Thirty-eight bucks will get you a hundred 8x10 sheets, which you can cut down for 400 4x5s. Just like autoradiography, only larger, and you use a camera...

[NancyP]

I must admit that the thought of making a tank crossed my mind, seeing that dipping film and dipping 1" x 3" glass microscopy slides is a similar process. The microscope slide tanks are too short, most likely, but the width is somewhere around 2", because for a typical hematoxylin and eosin staining row, you need 12 or more of the tanks jammed together so as not to hog counter space. One of the other things that crossed my mind was the multilevel tissue culture plastic flask the in a size larger than a T75.

Do you use the steel vertical hangers, or does each film get its own partitioned space?

Right now the sane thing to do is to keep it simple, use the time honored ("gold standard") tray method, so I get at least some results. Getting started in LF is a fairly complex process, at least if you are getting camera or lens in the "used" marketplace. Right now I am learning about lens attributes and nomenclature from the View Camera Magazine compilation of lens articles, Kerry Thalmann's site, this site's articles (obviously), and a few other sites.

[BetterSense]

Perhaps BetterSense would describe his technique.

The shuffle method that I learned (in the 1960s!) involved putting the sheets in at thirty second intervals, rotating the stack at one minute intervals, and then taking them out in the same order, also at thirty second intervals. The press photographer who taught me this claimed that he could do ten sheets at once, something like eight minutes each for thirteen minutes total time. Obviously, losing track of the first sheet would have created some interesting negatives. When I tried it, I tended to get the sheets out of order unless I used a small tray, and then scratching was a problem. At 25 cents per sheet (those were the days!) it seemed clear that the method was just not for me. At the current dollar-plus-per-sheet prices, I'm pretty sure that I could abandon one-shot developer, use gallon tanks with hangers, and still come out ahead.

And how one would do this while wearing gloves is beyond me!

That's about it except I don't wait 30 seconds between sheets, I just put them in as fast as I reasonably can and same for when I take them out. I don't even keep track of which sheet is what. With 10min or more development times I don't care.

I also pre-soak in the same tray that becomes my "stop" water.

I never wear gloves.

I did a long stint with 4x5 hangers. No scratches, but occasional uneven edges. I never learned the magic agitation formula for perfect evenness. 90% of the time, sure. But never licked it. Tray causes scratches when I screw up. But tanks caused unevenness even when I didn't screw up. I was halfway through designing a nitrogen-burst agitation system when I developed a few batches in trays and decided to stick with that. Side benefits are less chemistry volume, same trays I use for printing, but you still need some system for washing.

[StoneNYC]

That's about it except I don't wait 30 seconds between sheets, I just put them in as fast as I reasonably can and same for when I take them out. I don't even keep track of which sheet is what. With 10min or more development times I don't care.

I also pre-soak in the same tray that becomes my "stop" water.

I never wear gloves.

I did a long stint with 4x5 hangers. No scratches, but occasional uneven edges. I never learned the magic agitation formula for perfect evenness. 90% of the time, sure. But never licked it. Tray causes scratches when I screw up. But tanks caused unevenness even when I didn't screw up. I was halfway through designing a nitrogen-burst agitation system when I developed a few batches in trays and decided to stick with that. Side benefits are less chemistry volume, same trays I use for printing, but you still need some system for washing.

Wear gloves!!!!!

That's all...

[Harold_4074]

This should set some kind of lower bound to the sophistication of developing equipment---a two-hanger sheet film tank. It was made in about an hour using only a table saw (with an unsuitable blade), utility knife, square and sanding block. The traditional way to assemble acrylic is to solvent-weld with ethylene dichloride, but that takes pretty well-fitted joints, so I used a filled two-part acrylic from the building supply store. The curved lines are where I had pinhole leaks at first; I fixed them by carving out the joint a bit and caulking with more adhesive.

110412110413

This tank is sized for 5x7 and one liter of working solution; my small 4x5 tanks hold up to six hangers, but I always use four and the same one-liter quantity of developer. Similarly, a single 8x10 sheet goes into one liter of developer in a tray, so the film-area-to-developer ratio is either 70 or 80 square inches per liter.

With a one-shot developer and alkaline fixer, the process could hardly be much simpler: fill the tank before turning out the lights, develop with the ANSI-standard lift/tilt/lower agitation, and dump the developer before filling with a plain water stop bath (sloppiness is OK here; it's just water). After dumping the stop, fill the tank from a one-liter bottle or beaker of fixer, and after a couple of minutes the lights can be turned on. Washing can be done in the tank, or in a different container; just be sure that the tops of the hangers get washed as well.

(I have discovered a subtle advantage to tanks that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread: the smaller surface area leads to less evaporative cooling if the relative humidity is low. In tray development, if I re-use the stop bath water for a second sheet, I can easily feel the difference between it and the developer just mixed from 68 degree tempered water. And this is in a darkroom that is within a degree or so of 68F!)

[ataim]

You can roll the Jobo tank in a sink full of water and use only 270mL, as per Jobo's recommendation.

Nancy, to sart, buy any Kodak or Ilford offering, there is less chance of getting a bad batch of film that way.
Then buy a normal developer like D-76, HC-110 or the comparable Ilford developers.
Develop according to manufacturer's recommendation, or try Massive Development Chart: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php
If you're unhappy with the results, make the necessary changes in exposure and/or development.
It's a fun process, but it's still a process.

Best answer yet.

[Bruce Watson]

I haven't hand developed film for a few decades, and back then I was using 35mm film and Paterson reels in tank. Suggestions?

Including the thread title, you're asking a four part question: Film, Developer, Tank, Tray? Or maybe a three part question: Film, Developer, Development method?

There are so many development methods and I've used so few of them that I don't feel qualified to extend much of an opinion on those, so I won't. I'll talk a bit about films and developers though. :eek:

The bottom line on films and developers is, they all work, and they all work pretty well. For getting your feet wet (as it were) pick something cheap and plentiful. An old "standard" like Tri-X in D76 with tray processing for example.

Once you get past the newbie stage, you'll likely pick a film and developer and use them for most everything so you can learn their strengths and weaknesses. Just be forewarned that there is no "magic bullet".

For 5x4, I recommend modern fast emulsions. Why? Two reasons mostly. First, grain isn't much of a problem with LF -- a 10x enlargement makes a 50 x 40 inch print, and at less than 12x enlargement most films make grainless or nearly grainless prints. It's not the 1970s anymore. But reciprocity failure is a problem, especially with the apertures you'll be using in 5x4, where you'll shoot a lot at f/22 and smaller, which implies slow shutter speeds. And modern T-grain films have considerably better reciprocity characteristics than the "normal" cubic grain films.

Why does this matter? Well, say you're making a photograph of a rock in a stream. Say the light is full direct light, casting a nice hard shadow. The front of this rock is pretty cool, and the patterns work well with the curve of the rock at the water line where the patterns fold back away from you. And you want to hold that pattern in your shadow detail.

So you meter and set your exposure. Say you have to shoot at 1/8 at f/32 to get the DOF you want. You develop your film and get what looks like a perfect negative. You put it on the light table, whip out a loupe, and find that where you thought you were holding shadow detail on the rock at the water line, it's gone clear. In the print, it's gone to a featureless black. Makes a good print, but not that special print you thought you had.

So you go back and try again. And again. And again. Yes, this is a true story. Took me quite a while to figure out what I was doing wrong. And what was wrong, was my Tri-X was going into reciprocity failure in those shadows.

Once I finally figured it out, I had to test it. So I bought some TMY (Tmax 400). Exposed it exactly as I had the Tri-X. Exactly the same method (having first established my personal EI (exposure index) and my "N" development time). First try, out popped those elusive shadow details. Made an outstanding print. And I still have the partially used box of Tri-X I was using at the time, because I switched to TMY right then.

All that I'd been doing was right, except I was expecting that a 1/8 second exposure wouldn't put me in reciprocity failure. And for the vast majority of the negative, it wasn't. But for that little bit of the negative that I was especially interested in, it was. Not enough photons to make a reasonable latent image. Sigh....

So... any of the modern films, Acros, Delta, or Tmax will do fine from that point of view.

As for the other elusive point I was trying to make, I've found in LF I tend to always want speed. Shooting at 1/8 second a lot, the breeze turns into a challenge. But to shoot a slower film, I'd be trading that 1/8 for 1/2 which would be far worse.

Me? I've been using TMY as my only B&W film for years now. I found XTOL to be excellent with it. I used XTOL for many years; I've never had an "XTOL failure". Mix XTOL with steam distilled water and you should be fine -- XTOL isn't fond of dissolved iron in some tap waters. I store it in old wine bottles with VacuVin stoppers and had XTOL stock last for 12 months. Dilute it when you use it and use it "one shot".

But really, all the films and most of the developers are pretty well tested out and fairly well known and understood. It all works, and it all works pretty darn well. Hard to go wrong. Pick one and go.

[Serge S]

I don't know about you, but the MOD54 has been a total nightmare for me. I have much better luck with a Unicolor Print drum. I can get four 4x5 sheets developed without worrying about whether or not they stayed in the slots.

Was that with the older version of theMOD54? Just wondering as I was thinking of ordering one to try as I already have the Patterson tank.

Thanks

Serge

[Leigh]

You can roll the Jobo tank in a sink full of water and use only 270mL, as per Jobo's recommendation.
Jobo's recommendation of 270mL is based on the tank being held accurately LEVEL.

How do you plan to do that in a sink full of water?

- Leigh

[StoneNYC]

Was that with the older version of theMOD54? Just wondering as I was thinking of ordering one to try as I already have the Patterson tank.

Thanks

Serge

Same question I had, I've never had film falling out or uneven dev with the mod54 second version.

[Ari]

Jobo's recommendation of 270mL is based on the tank being held accurately LEVEL.

How do you plan to do that in a sink full of water?

- Leigh

Re: keeping it level...

In this instance, I chose to disregard that particular recommendation; I found that the irregular, erratic action of combined spinning and bobbing in water to be beneficial to evenness of development.

Necessity forced me to try the water bath, as I developed a cramp in my arm from endless hours of rolling on a hard countertop (I was processing 50 sheets every other day).

I found it to be a good method, though the stern Teutonic engineers at Jobo may sneer in my general direction.

I ended up buying a Simmons base, which actually uses the same principle, though it does so in a much milder fashion.

[Michael Cienfuegos]

Was that with the older version of theMOD54? Just wondering as I was thinking of ordering one to try as I already have the Patterson tank.

Thanks

Serge

I have the older version. :(

m

[Bill Kelleher]

Tell it the red sox are better

[StoneNYC]

I have the older version. :(

m

The new version is much better.

[Michael Cienfuegos]

I have the older version. :(

m


The new version is much better.

Call me cheep, I'm just not willing to spend the loot for another problem, even if the problem may have been alleviated. The Unidrum works satisfactorily for me for both 4x5 and 5x7. Not sure what I'll do with the MOD54 film holder, just leave it in the box for now.

m

[jnantz]

any film you can find
ansco 130 1:8@72 degrees
trays
7ish mins

i would have suggested caffenolC
in trays but sometimes it is hard to source the coffee, the
washing soda and the vit c ...

good luck
john