MOD54 vs. Jobo 2509n minimum developer for 6-sheet inversion processing

[Simos Xenakis]

I'm planning to start out with hand-inversion processing of 4x5 sheet film and am stuck between the MOD54 (in a Paterson 3-reel tank) vs. the Jobo 2509n (in a 2520 2-reel tank).

Aside from the additional flexibility/modularity (and easy 4x5 loading) of the Jobo, and assuming my inversion technique would be identical for both systems, why is it that the Jobo, which seems to be a smaller tank (accepts 2x 35mm reels), requires nearly 1.5L of developer for inversion processing whereas the MOD54 requires only 1L in a (seemingly) larger 3-reel tank?

Additional questions:
a) can you adjust the amount of developer downward when processing (by hand inversion) less than 6 sheets of film in each of these two tank systems? Say, if doing 4 sheets, or if doing 2 sheets, rather than 6? Do you still have to use 1L for MOD54 and 1.5L for 2509n?
b) how does the above answer change with rotation processing on the Jobo? The website says: "High efficiency; run as few as two sheets of 4X5 with no waste of chemistry." Having a hard time understanding what that means. Isn't the minimum volume for rotary processing 270ml? According to what I've read here (http://www.jobo-usa.com/images/manuals/tank_and_drum_capacities.pdf), that is the same minimum volume needed for 6 sheets. If so, that means the tank is NOT efficient for 2-sheet processing, since you'd be able to get 4 additional sheets out of the solution if you maxed out the 4x5 reel. What am I missing about their claim that it's a "high efficiency" tank?

I am a complete newbie (first post here at LFPF!), so I'm sorry if I'm missing something super basic. Tried researching this topic but couldn't find an answer to these nagging questions.

[Leigh]

Regardless of the method or equipment or technique used...

You must ALWAYS use at least the minimum amount of developer per roll as specified by the developer maker.

If a 100ml bottle of the concentrate is spec'd to develop 10 rolls of film, then you need 10ml per roll.
This minimum applies to the volume of concentrate, regardless of the dilution used.

Using less runs the risk of underdevelopment or uneven development.

- Leigh

[Graham Patterson]

The MOD54 uses a tank that is closer to the Jobo 1500 series in size. The 2500 series have a larger diameter, and the film is positioned close to the outside. For inversion and given the same tank height, the 2500 has more volume. If you were doing a 35mm film in a Paterson spiral you would need 290ml minimum. That's about 54 sq. in. for a full 35mm film. 6x 5x4 is 120 sq. in. Provided, as Leigh says, your active ingredients are enough, the 2509 in rotary mode is pretty efficient. Chemistry is a lot cheaper than the film.

Using a 2500 series tank for inversion is possible, but it is a bit of work, and unless you are using stock or replenished developer it might be expensive. You have to fill a lot of empty tank space.

For inversion, you have to use enough developer to cover the film at rest. There's no way around that.

[vdonovan]

If you're not committed to six sheets, you might also check out the SP-445, which handles four sheets. Super compact, efficient, and the easiest to load. I love mine! https://shop.stearmanpress.com/products/sp-445-compact-4x5-film-processing-system

[Michael W]

Additional questions:
a) can you adjust the amount of developer downward when processing (by hand inversion) less than 6 sheets of film in each of these two tank systems? Say, if doing 4 sheets, or if doing 2 sheets, rather than 6? Do you still have to use 1L for MOD54 and 1.5L for 2509n?

I have a MOD54, which I like, but you have to use one litre no matter how many sheets you are doing. For me that's not a problem as I usually have four or more sheets to do.
That new SP-445 system does look interesting.

[Simos Xenakis]

Regardless of the method or equipment or technique used...

You must ALWAYS use at least the minimum amount of developer per roll as specified by the developer maker.

If a 100ml bottle of the concentrate is spec'd to develop 10 rolls of film, then you need 10ml per roll.
This minimum applies to the volume of concentrate, regardless of the dilution used.

Using less runs the risk of underdevelopment or uneven development.

- Leigh

Thanks, Leigh. That's helpful info to keep in mind. I'm new to film photography in general, so I'll be sure to check the developer spec minimum as my first concern and always use at least that amount unless my processor calls for an even greater volume of chemistry, which would be the case with both of these systems doing manual inversion. But yeah, in the case of rotary processing which utilizes very little chemistry, I'll have to remind myself to always check the developer mins first.

[Simos Xenakis]

The MOD54 uses a tank that is closer to the Jobo 1500 series in size. The 2500 series have a larger diameter, and the film is positioned close to the outside. For inversion and given the same tank height, the 2500 has more volume. If you were doing a 35mm film in a Paterson spiral you would need 290ml minimum. That's about 54 sq. in. for a full 35mm film. 6x 5x4 is 120 sq. in. Provided, as Leigh says, your active ingredients are enough, the 2509 in rotary mode is pretty efficient. Chemistry is a lot cheaper than the film.

Using a 2500 series tank for inversion is possible, but it is a bit of work, and unless you are using stock or replenished developer it might be expensive. You have to fill a lot of empty tank space.

For inversion, you have to use enough developer to cover the film at rest. There's no way around that.

Graham, the way you framed it makes sense. So the Jobo is simply much fatter (even though it's shorter). And the "girth" allows it to be super efficient at rotary since only a small amount of chemistry is required to slosh through the film which sits closer to the outside of the tank. Paterson, in the pics, just looked like a larger tank overall though, and the fact that it can handle 3 rolls of 35 as opposed to the Jobo's 2 rolls threw me off. I guess in terms of the 4x5 minimum specs I listed above (1L for MOD54 / ~1.5L for Jobo), it must also have something to do with the MOD54 being a chunkier piece of plastic which occupies more of the volume in the tank, making it easier to fill to the top and cover the film. The 50% greater min volume is still surprising but it makes more sense now.

Thanks for helping me work through this!

[Simos Xenakis]

If you're not committed to six sheets, you might also check out the SP-445, which handles four sheets. Super compact, efficient, and the easiest to load. I love mine! https://shop.stearmanpress.com/products/sp-445-compact-4x5-film-processing-system

I had looked into that one but came across a fairly recent thread (forgot which website, APUG maybe?) where people were having issues with bent film holders leading to streaking on the back side of the film. The designer was trying to help them out but I don't think the issue was ever resolved. Plus, being able to process 35mm using the same equipment really appeals to me.

[Simos Xenakis]

I have a MOD54, which I like, but you have to use one litre no matter how many sheets you are doing. For me that's not a problem as I usually have four or more sheets to do.
That new SP-445 system does look interesting.

Out of curiosity, what is considered to be a decent efficiency of chemistry per slide when it comes to inverting 4x5? I guess the SP-445 sets the mark at like 120ml per slide?

[Halford]

Here are the Paterson and the Jobo 2500-series next to each other. In a picture with no context the Paterson can look bigger because it's taller relative to its diameter, but in fact the Jobo is bigger in every dimension.
156295
156296

[Simos Xenakis]

Halford, wow, that's a Paterson 3-reel tank (the PTP116)?

[ruilourosa]

Lowest quantity possible: paterson orbital!

[Huub]

b) how does the above answer change with rotation processing on the Jobo? The website says: "High efficiency; run as few as two sheets of 4X5 with no waste of chemistry." Having a hard time understanding what that means. Isn't the minimum volume for rotary processing 270ml? According to what I've read here (http://www.jobo-usa.com/images/manuals/tank_and_drum_capacities.pdf), that is the same minimum volume needed for 6 sheets. If so, that means the tank is NOT efficient for 2-sheet processing, since you'd be able to get 4 additional sheets out of the solution if you maxed out the 4x5 reel. What am I missing about their claim that it's a "high efficiency" tank?

270 ml is indeed the minimum amount of solution you need to use for rotary processing with this tank. It depends a lot on the dilution of your developer how many sheets 4x5 you can do with this volume. With 1+1 XTOL or D76 it would be 6 sheets as the minimum amount for these developers is 150 ml of stock solution for 6 sheets. If you would go down to 1+3 and using 70 ml of stock solution with these developers it would only be 3 sheets.

In both cases it is much more efficient then the 1 L of 1.5 L you would need for inversion with the MOD54 or the Jobo.

[Light Guru]

If you want to do inversion DONT use the mod45. The mod45 has a vary bad problem of having film sheets come loose ruing not only the sheet the came loose but the sheet next to it in the holder.

The mod45 however is perfect for stand developing however.

[Michael W]

I do inversion processing with MOD54, four to six sheets, no problems with sheets moving.

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

If you want to do inversion DONT use the mod45. The mod45 has a vary bad problem of having film sheets come loose ruing not only the sheet the came loose but the sheet next to it in the holder.

The mod45 however is perfect for stand developing however.

My experience,in a nutshell. Terrifying to load, leaves flow marks around the fingers.Many users report it being ok if only 4 sheets loaded. Being ok for stand development says it all,really (re Light Guru's comment). If you consider Replenished XTOL , you have the economy sorted,so you are free to source any other tank system, as you only have to discard/add 70-80 millilitres of stock for each 4x5 sheet.
I love the Combiplan,but I have the luxury of a proper darkroom.

[koraks]

I do inversion processing with MOD54, four to six sheets, no problems with sheets moving.
Dito. Inversions must be done gently to prevent the sheets from dislodging. But with a little care it works great. I have had no surge marks except when I tried stand development.

[jose angel]

Another MOD45 user here. I`d say it is somewhat easy to came loose the film if -extra care- is not taken.
When the tank is inverted gently, I`m able to perform four inversions in less than 15" without any problem. I do it quite often.

[Halford]

Halford, wow, that's a Paterson 3-reel tank (the PTP116)?

Nope that was a 2-reel tank. The 3-reel really is taller than the Jobo :)

[Simos Xenakis]

270 ml is indeed the minimum amount of solution you need to use for rotary processing with this tank. It depends a lot on the dilution of your developer how many sheets 4x5 you can do with this volume. With 1+1 XTOL or D76 it would be 6 sheets as the minimum amount for these developers is 150 ml of stock solution for 6 sheets. If you would go down to 1+3 and using 70 ml of stock solution with these developers it would only be 3 sheets.

In both cases it is much more efficient then the 1 L of 1.5 L you would need for inversion with the MOD54 or the Jobo.

Thanks, Huub, and yeah, that's what has me second guessing inversion processing all together.


If you want to do inversion DONT use the mod45. The mod45 has a vary bad problem of having film sheets come loose ruing not only the sheet the came loose but the sheet next to it in the holder.

The mod45 however is perfect for stand developing however.


I do inversion processing with MOD54, four to six sheets, no problems with sheets moving.


My experience,in a nutshell. Terrifying to load, leaves flow marks around the fingers.Many users report it being ok if only 4 sheets loaded. Being ok for stand development says it all,really (re Light Guru's comment). If you consider Replenished XTOL , you have the economy sorted,so you are free to source any other tank system, as you only have to discard/add 70-80 millilitres of stock for each 4x5 sheet.
I love the Combiplan,but I have the luxury of a proper darkroom.


Dito. Inversions must be done gently to prevent the sheets from dislodging. But with a little care it works great. I have had no surge marks except when I tried stand development.


Another MOD45 user here. I`d say it is somewhat easy to came loose the film if -extra care- is not taken.
When the tank is inverted gently, I`m able to perform four inversions in less than 15" without any problem. I do it quite often.


Nope that was a 2-reel tank. The 3-reel really is taller than the Jobo :)

So many mixed reviews on MOD54 (as well as the Jobo 2509n). Makes me wish I had a proper darkroom so I could tray process my film.

[vdonovan]

I've used a Mod54 since they first came out, developing hundreds of sheets in mine. It is finicky to load, though I never had sheets come loose using inversion.

I can't say enough about the SP-445. It is MUCH easier to load than the Mod54 and is more compact and easy to handle. It has given me consistent results over the few dozen sheets I've processed in it. It uses less solution than the Mod54, but that's not the main reason I prefer it.

[ScottPhotoCo]

I've processed hundreds and hundreds of 4x5 sheets using the MOD54. Learn it quirks and it's a breeze.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Michael W]

So many mixed reviews on MOD54 (as well as the Jobo 2509n). Makes me wish I had a proper darkroom so I could tray process my film.
Just wait until you read all the mixed reviews on tray processing... :)

[Simos Xenakis]

I've used a Mod54 since they first came out, developing hundreds of sheets in mine. It is finicky to load, though I never had sheets come loose using inversion.

I can't say enough about the SP-445. It is MUCH easier to load than the Mod54 and is more compact and easy to handle. It has given me consistent results over the few dozen sheets I've processed in it. It uses less solution than the Mod54, but that's not the main reason I prefer it.

Yeah, the loading (judging by the videos) was something I saw myself struggling with from the start but given how many people have success with it, I figured I was being silly. The Jobo, however, always seemed like a more intuitive method of loading (from like a muscle memory point of view).

That SP-445 really looks great but I think he needs to iron out some of the kinks. Just the other day I saw him post a photo and instructions on how to modify the holders with the centers cut out since a few people were getting scratched negs. Maybe the manufacturing tolerances are sloppy and some parts are sharper than others. Same thing with leaks -- some people with leaks and loose O-rings, and some without. Some with mysterious streaks, some without. On paper, the product looks fantastic though.


I've processed hundreds and hundreds of 4x5 sheets using the MOD54. Learn it quirks and it's a breeze.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you have any tips? I think I can figure out the loading with some constant practice watching TV in the evenings and what not. How about agitation? They say gentle is key, right? And is it like the Jobo where only 4 sheets are recommended for critical work rather than 6? If so, why isn't 6 reliable?

And do those Paterson 3-reel tanks leak when inverting?


Just wait until you read all the mixed reviews on tray processing... :)

Great, maybe I should plunk down for that Jobo auto-processor I was considering from the start :)

Just felt like I needed to learn the hard way (manual methods) and work up a decent skill set before buying expensive stuff. Otherwise my skills would be playing catch up with the "headroom" of the equipment.

[Leigh]

maybe I should plunk down for that Jobo auto-processor I was considering from the start...
One comment regarding rotary processors or any method that involves continuous movement of the developer...

This will totally and completely defeat any compensation action normally associated with any given developer.

In my case this applies specifically to Rodinal, but the same is true of any other compensating developer.

Compensating developers work by local depletion of developing agent in areas of high density.
For this to happen, the developer in contact with the negative must be still (not moving).

Rodinal wants very gentle, brief, and infrequent agitation.

- Leigh

[Simos Xenakis]

Thanks, Leigh, for the helpful information once again. Not quite grasping the concept of compensation so I'll have to look that one up.

[Leigh]

Not quite grasping the concept of compensation so I'll have to look that one up.
Compensation refers to how the denser parts of the negative are rendered.

A non-compensating developer renders more heavily exposed areas progressively denser.

A compensating developer reduces that effect at higher exposure levels so the highlights don't "blow out" when printed. This yields better detail in the highlight (bright) areas of the print.

- Leigh

[Simos Xenakis]

Compensation refers to how the denser parts of the negative are rendered.

A non-compensating developer renders more heavily exposed areas progressively denser.

A compensating developer reduces that effect at higher exposure levels so the highlights don't "blow out" when printed. This yields better detail in the highlight (bright) areas of the print.

- Leigh

Interesting. So it's kind of a contrast control method. In that case, compensating developer is certainly of interest to me.

...and the decision gets harder.

[Leigh]

Interesting. So it's kind of a contrast control method.
Yes, exactly.

I use compensating developers for everything.
Any developer with that characteristic will mention it prominently in the specs.

My standard developer is Rodinal (the real original one).
There are other good compensating developers.

- Leigh

[Simos Xenakis]

Yes, exactly.

I use compensating developers for everything.
Any developer with that characteristic will mention it prominently in the specs.

My standard developer is Rodinal (the real original one).
There are other good compensating developers.

- Leigh

Leigh, this discussion actually brings me to some general questions I had about contrast.

Given that longer exposures get even longer due to reciprocity failure, and since when that happens, highlights are being brightened at a faster pace than shadows (if I'm understanding it correctly), effectively increasing contrast, what are some steps I can take from capture through to development to end up with a negative with controlled contrast?

Note, there will be times when I'll want the aesthetic effect of smooth water and streaky skies, so I might purposely use NDs... but when I do, I would still want to control contrast. In fact, if I'm digitizing and/or Photoshopping, I might even prefer a low contrast/flat looking image.


Are there physical lens filters that will lower contrast?

Lenses? I've read that certain lenses (modern Fuji, and maybe Nikons) give a more contrasty/sharp/modern/digital looking result. Would I be better with German lenses?

Compensating developer? Check. I'll look into Rodinal.

Agitation technique? Like you said, with compensating developer, I can't use rotary processing. So if I'm manually processing my film, what else can I do to lower contrast? Stand/semi-stand development?

Anything I'm missing or wrong about?

[Leigh]

Hi Simos,

In almost any real-world photo, the contrast range of the subject greatly exceeds the range that the film can capture.

I don't know of any films that have extended contrast range, although supposedly some developers can achieve that.

The only option you have is to control the development by adjusting the time.
Ansel Adams covered the technique in his book.

Film density builds up with time, up to the maximum possible at any specific point in the negative.
The thin parts (shadows in the print) develop to completion very fast, while high-density areas take more time.
So in order to decrease the over-all density of the negative, you reduce the development time.

To achieve predictable results using this technique requires careful calibration of the entire process.
This requires the use of a spot meter to determine exposure parameters, and experimentation with development.

I would consider this an advanced technique, appropriate for a junior or senior level class.
Given that you're still at the freshman level, perhaps it's good to just file this for future reference.

I suggest you hone your skills and perfect your techniques with "average" subjects to yield good prints.
Once you can get very good results consistently, then consider expanding your tool kit.


Are there physical lens filters that will lower contrast?
I don't know of any that will change a scene's contrast. Neutral-density filters make a scene darker, but all areas are darkened by the same amount, so the same contrast remains.


I've read that certain lenses (modern Fuji, and maybe Nikons) give a more contrasty/sharp/modern/digital looking result.
Some lenses have more apparent contrast than others.
However, the difference that I've seen has been minimal.
Obviously this will vary depending on which exact lenses are compared.

Also, note that there can be a lot of variation between any two examples of a specific lens.

- Leigh

[Light Guru]

Another MOD45 user here. I`d say it is somewhat easy to came loose the film if -extra care- is not taken.
When the tank is inverted gently, I`m able to perform four inversions in less than 15" without any problem. I do it quite often.

Even with gentle agitation they can come loose with the mod54

[Duolab123]

Hard rubber 1/2 gallon tanks and hangers. Replenish. Three tanks 6 hangers should cost about 35 bucks. This is so easy all you need is a closet at night and a timer.
Stand development, any kind of agitation you want. Sometimes I skip my Jobo and expert tanks for the calm and quiet of hangers and hard rubber tanks.
Peace be with you :) Mike