MOD54 on Paterson Tank with a Uniroller bi-directional base

[jrmst102]

Hello there,

I am having a lot of problems developing 4x5 Ilford HP+5 film using the MOD54 on a Paterson Tank with a Uniroller base. The negatives came out all over developed, no contrast nor sharpening, all is mostly black. I am using a 1,000 ml solution of Ilfosol 3 diluted at 9:1 (I suspect that the developer is not the right one) but I will switch to DD-X on Tuesday. I develop at 6':30" as recommended by Ilford in its technical chart.

I want to use the rotary base (I do develop other film sizes with it) so to maintain some sort of consistency in my process.

Does anybody has any recommendation on:


1.- Proper dilution of Ilfosol 3 and DD-X for the MOD54?
2.- Developer quantity (i.e. 1,000ML?) for the MOD54 on a Paterson 3 tank?
3.- Proper timing or adjustment on using a Uniroller base (bi-directional)?


I am keeping working on HP5+ until I get it right.

Many thanks for your kind support

Regards

[TimHenrion]

Sounds like your main problem is developer related. When you get that sorted out, its important to know that you shouldn't be using rotary agitation with MOD54's. MOD54 specifically needs inversion agitation. The reason has to do with solution flow issues around the 'wings' that hold the film sheets when you use rotary agitation. If you rotary agitate, you will get streaks due to the uneven solution flow, vortices, etc. Using inversion agitation is specifically called out in the MOD54 documentation.

[jrmst102]

Sounds like your main problem is developer related. When you get that sorted out, its important to know that you shouldn't be using rotary agitation with MOD54's. MOD54 specifically needs inversion agitation. The reason has to do with solution flow issues around the 'wings' that hold the film sheets when you use rotary agitation. If you rotary agitate, you will get streaks due to the uneven solution flow, vortices, etc. Using inversion agitation is specifically called out in the MOD54 documentation.

Tim,

Thanks. I tried with another developer, ID11 on a 1:1 dilution and with manual, slow inversion as explained in the website. The MOD54 is quite easy to load in the dark tent but I had better results using the taco method in a smaller tank (less chemicals and without the $59 price tag of the MOD54) with the same developers that I am using now.

I will try again tomorrow, I have yet to justify how much I paid for this (without accounting for the film and the developer used on testing this, but let's take it as the cost of learning).


Any advice will be appreciated.

Regards

[Ed Bray]

You will probably be unable to justify the cost of the Mod54 if you continue to use rotary processing as it was never designed for that mode of use. You would have been much better buying a Jobo Tank and 2509n reel which is specifically designed for rotary processing of 4x5 sheet film.

The best way of rotary processing sheet film is with a Jobo Expert drum, but these are very much more expensive and can take considerably more chemicals to ensure full coverage and even development

[koh303]

Hello there,

I am having a lot of problems developing 4x5 Ilford HP+5 film using the MOD54 on a Paterson Tank with a Uniroller base. The negatives came out all over developed, no contrast nor sharpening, all is mostly black. I am using a 1,000 ml solution of Ilfosol 3 diluted at 9:1 (I suspect that the developer is not the right one) but I will switch to DD-X on Tuesday. I develop at 6':30" as recommended by Ilford in its technical chart.

I want to use the rotary base (I do develop other film sizes with it) so to maintain some sort of consistency in my process.

Does anybody has any recommendation on:


1.- Proper dilution of Ilfosol 3 and DD-X for the MOD54?
2.- Developer quantity (i.e. 1,000ML?) for the MOD54 on a Paterson 3 tank?
3.- Proper timing or adjustment on using a Uniroller base (bi-directional)?


I am keeping working on HP5+ until I get it right.

Many thanks for your kind support

Regards

Simply placing the paterson tank on a rotating base will not help or change the consistency of your process, compared to inversion. I am not at all sure how you can do this with any paterson tank, without the need for some major modifications, not to mention that if you are using a super system 4 tank, and it is FULL with 1L of chemistry, the risk of the lid popping off during process and all developer on the floor is high.

Using a processor, with a dedicated rotarty system tank, as has been suggested above might help, but might also not solve the problem. thousands of users are getting ok negs from MOD54, so if you are getting all black negs there are two options:
1. You are over exposing
2. You are over developing

Eliminate those 2 first before changing anything, then you can move on.

[jrmst102]

Simply placing the paterson tank on a rotating base will not help or change the consistency of your process, compared to inversion. I am not at all sure how you can do this with any paterson tank, without the need for some major modifications, not to mention that if you are using a super system 4 tank, and it is FULL with 1L of chemistry, the risk of the lid popping off during process and all developer on the floor is high.

Using a processor, with a dedicated rotarty system tank, as has been suggested above might help, but might also not solve the problem. thousands of users are getting ok negs from MOD54, so if you are getting all black negs there are two options:
1. You are over exposing
2. You are over developing

Eliminate those 2 first before changing anything, then you can move on.

Dear Koh303,

Thanks for your kind insight.

I did the last two development yesterday using manual agitation as indicated in the MOD54 website. I found inconsistencies there and I used a different developer (ID11) in the last two cases. I am not using a rotary process with MOD54 anymore but manual, slow agitation. So far, I have found better results with the taco method and with tray development. I am exposing the same image (when I do test, I use the same subject with the same continuous light, in this case a flower vase against a backdrop with a main light) but over developing might be a possibility since I am following the manufacturer's direction (ID11 - 1:1, 13 minutes for HP5+ @ 400)

Thanks for your advice.

Regards

[jrmst102]

Dear Ed,

Thanks. I am considering a Jobo Expert Drum or a Jobo Tank. In the meantime, I am testing the MOD54 with manual inversion as suggested by the manufacturer in the MOD54.com site.

Regards

[StoneNYC]

Ok two issues... For one... When you use continuous rotary agitation, you MUST reduce the time of development by 10%-15% ....

Second, the Paterson tank was not designed to be rotary processed so it will not hold the center post still, so it may rotate as the tank rotates, causing possible severely uneven development.

I own both the MOD54 and the 2509n so I'm familiar with both designs, MOD54 is way better for inversion development (and to me is much easier to load) the 2509n is way better for rotary and less good for inversion because of the amount of dev that is needed for inversion vs rotation.

Anyway I don't think you will be able to do what you're trying to without changing your tank to a JOBO tank that accepts the 2509n.

Good luck!

[koh303]

Ok two issues... For one... When you use continuous rotary agitation, you MUST reduce the time of development by 10%-15% .... thats not exactly true and or relevant here.


I own both the MOD54 and the 2509n so I'm familiar with both designs, MOD54 is way better for inversion development (and to me is much easier to load) the 2509n is way better for rotary and less good for inversion because of the amount of dev that is needed for inversion vs rotation.

Anyway I don't think you will be able to do what you're trying to without changing your tank to a JOBO tank that accepts the 2509n.

Good luck!

Didn't you just post a rant about people chiming in with what they do, what they own even when it has nothing to do with OP? I am only mentioning this due to the amount of times the word "I" and "me" appears in your post.

[koh303]

Dear Koh303,

Thanks for your kind insight.

I did the last two development yesterday using manual agitation as indicated in the MOD54 website. I found inconsistencies there and I used a different developer (ID11) in the last two cases. I am not using a rotary process with MOD54 anymore but manual, slow agitation. So far, I have found better results with the taco method and with tray development. I am exposing the same image (when I do test, I use the same subject with the same continuous light, in this case a flower vase against a backdrop with a main light) but over developing might be a possibility since I am following the manufacturer's direction (ID11 - 1:1, 13 minutes for HP5+ @ 400)

Thanks for your advice.

Regards

I think there is a minor syntax issue here, but what i gather is that you are on the right track. In the OP you mentioned you got all back negs.
Now it seems you are having uneven developing with the mod54 while good results form same batches of film in another method, is this correct?

If so, it is possible that you are experiencing what many other mod54 users find, its just not a perfect tool, and has some limitations, such as possible flow marks, surge patters etc, causing un even development. You should have however, gotten at least OK negatives, even if not perfect, regardless of developer or method.

If you are still having issues after your current test, please come back with clear flow of events, and the methods used, so that me or others can better try to help you find the problem.

[StoneNYC]

thats not exactly true and or relevant here.



Didn't you just post a rant about people chiming in with what they do, what they own even when it has nothing to do with OP? I am only mentioning this due to the amount of times the word "I" and "me" appears in your post.

What are you talking about? If you continuously agitate film you replenish the developer more quickly and therefore need to reduce development time or your negs will be denser than you would have from inversion.

Secondly rather than say "you should do this" etc, I give examples of what I have experienced and let the OP decide if that's relevant to what they are experiencing/doing.

I never once had uneven development from the MOD54, ever, and if you understand that a rotating tube has a center core that is not locked it is bought to rotate, meaning it won't spin with the rest of the container which will cause uneven development...

[koh303]

I never once had uneven development from the MOD54 This fact does not make it a universally infallible truth, and in fact, may users, including this one and apparently the OP have.

...if you understand that a rotating tube has a center core that is not locked it is bought to rotate, meaning it won't spin with the rest of the container which will cause uneven development...
Not sure i if understand the following statement: "a center core that is not locked it is bought to rotate".

[StoneNYC]

This fact does not make it a universally infallible truth, and in fact, may users, including this one and apparently the OP have.

Not sure i if understand the following statement: "a center core that is not locked it is bought to rotate".

BOUND to rotate.

Maybe you had uneven development because you are using it improperly, or don't understand what is causing the uneven development, it doesn't mean the MOD54 is somehow causing it, you just can't treat it like a JOBO, it's not designed for that.

It's like trying to shoot a LF camera handheld with no rangefinder and then wondering why your images aren't in focus... It's not designed for that.

[koh303]

BOUND to rotate.

Maybe you had uneven development because you are using it improperly, or don't understand what is causing the uneven development, it doesn't mean the MOD54 is somehow causing it, you just can't treat it like a JOBO, it's not designed for that.

Actually i meant that the fact you never had uneven negatives does necessarily or universally mean every one else would or does. The OP did not, even when used as instructed by MOD with inversion (as per what he later said).


It's like trying to shoot a LF camera handheld with no rangefinder and then wondering why your images aren't in focus... It's not designed for that. Actually, most focus pullers never look through a view finder of any kind, they are usually right 100% of the time. For the past decade i have been shooting LF handheld, with no range finder (my beat up speed graphic never had one), and have not yet had any shots which are out of focus, i know there are more then a few people who do this.

[jrmst102]

Dear Koh303,

Thanks for your kind reply.

I am using manual agitation after reading the replies yesterday. As mentioned by Tim, there were some developer issues and now it's much better but not consistent (uneven development). The MOD54 is very easy to load but I am finding that I am not very consistent with it.

I will do more tries but I am considering going to a JOBO 2520 + 2509n. I prefer to use the rotation process (personal preference).

I will let you know in case I find further issues.

Thanks for your support

Regards

[kleinbatavia]

Only done 100 or so sheets on a roller so far, but when using a roller and drum, I do indeed see better results when reducing the developing time by 10 or 15 percent or at the very minimum by using the minimum recommended time suggested on the package. This depends on the film used. (foma 100 and Tmax 400 do better with reduced times, Ilford HP5 and FP4 are better at minimum recommend times by the manufacturer. All shot at box speed, if you push / pull you will of course need to compensate for that.

[kleinbatavia]

You will probably be unable to justify the cost of the Mod54 if you continue to use rotary processing as it was never designed for that mode of use. You would have been much better buying a Jobo Tank and 2509n reel which is specifically designed for rotary processing of 4x5 sheet film.

The best way of rotary processing sheet film is with a Jobo Expert drum, but these are very much more expensive and can take considerably more chemicals to ensure full coverage and even development

In addition to which the "inventor" of the mod54 is a very rude and unpleasant person, so I would suggest to get a jobo. The main reason would be because it was designed for rotary processing though... I have one in the garage, never use(d) it as I work with expert drums. Could see if it fits on the roller or requires a CPA/CPE, etc if you like.

PS. I process 4x5 and 5x7 in a 3006 drum, only takes 500ml of chemicals (I often use the stop and fix for two batches), images come out perfectly developed every time! Never had a more economical drum...

[StoneNYC]

In addition to which the "inventor" of the mod54 is a very rude and unpleasant person, so I would suggest to get a jobo. The main reason would be because it was designed for rotary processing though... I have one in the garage, never use(d) it as I work with expert drums. Could see if it fits on the roller or requires a CPA/CPE, etc if you like.

PS. I process 4x5 and 5x7 in a 3006 drum, only takes 500ml of chemicals (I often use the stop and fix for two batches), images come out perfectly developed every time! Never had a more economical drum...

Haha the same could be said for the U.S. JOBO distributor...

But the Jobo as a product is much better overall, I still say that the MOD54 never had any serious errors, but the JOBO makes more sense when processing a lot or often.

[kleinbatavia]

Haha the same could be said for the U.S. JOBO distributor...

But the Jobo as a product is much better overall, I still say that the MOD54 never had any serious errors, but the JOBO makes more sense when processing a lot or often.

Hehe, well, I guess it is a good think I never had to deal with them. Having been on the market as long as it has, there is quite a bit of second hand JOBO equipment around. Makes a lot more sense than buying new. Here in Europe anyway. The new stuff is ridiculously expensive, but of course it is a niche product... I'm surprised no Chinese firm has stepped up an knocked off a copy of the expert drums.

[StoneNYC]

Hehe, well, I guess it is a good think I never had to deal with them. Having been on the market as long as it has, there is quite a bit of second hand JOBO equipment around. Makes a lot more sense than buying new. Here in Europe anyway. The new stuff is ridiculously expensive, but of course it is a niche product... I'm surprised no Chinese firm has stepped up an knocked off a copy of the expert drums.

The U.S. Distributor is a good businessman and does good for the film community, and I've bought new, sometimes it's worth it, I just prefer to support those who are both good for the film community AND someone who is kind to me whom I respect, but you can't always have both.

After years of using used products with defects that set me back, SOME things are better new, and I'm thankful a distributor exists.

[AlexGard]

The US JOBO distributor has never been anything but incredibly pleasant and friendly to deal with for me. I would have no hesitation in recommending them or any of their products.