8x10 film processing

[radu_c]

What would you recommend for processing 8x10 BW film negatives in terms of tanks and drums? I’m only set up for medium format thus far and looking for options. Thanks for the suggestions.

[Corran]

Tanks will take a lot of chemistry. There was a member here making small 2-sheet tanks but I think he stopped making those. Most of the metal tanks I've seen / have are massive capacity and not good for individual sheets or small batch processing unless you keep the chemicals and replenish, or possibly use extreme methods with very little developer.

Personally I would suggest getting the BTZS 8x10 tubes. I haven't used "drums" like the Jobo myself but the BTZS tubes for individual 8x10 sheets work great and are fairly cheap to get into. I think I bought my set of 6 for about $20 each. 8oz of chemistry per sheet.

Or just use 8x10 trays for the classic experience. It's not that bad - I resisted for years doing tray, but it works great. I only do 1 sheet at a time though as I don't trust myself not to scratch film otherwise.

[Peter De Smidt]

Start with trays, as Bryan says. It's cheap and can give great results. Regarding BTZS tubes, I liked them for 4x5, but I didn't as much for 8x10. At least my DIY versions weren't much fun to use, being really bulky. For the last 20 years, I used a Jobo CPP-2 and an 8x10 expert drum. It's great for small amounts of film, but today's model is very pricey.

[paulbarden]

Trays: reliable, consistent results, easily replicated process every time.

[Jeroen]

Start with trays, preferably one size up, so 11x14" ones.
I got really bad results at first, bought a Jobo CPA, results didn't improve. Then I discovered that Foma film was to blame, duh. Since then I shoot Adox and Ilford film, but now I'm spoiled with the Jobo :)

[Two23]

There is a new product coming in 2 weeks from Stearman Press. It's the follow up to their highly successful sp-445 and is called the sp-810. Very easy to use and takes minimal chemistry. Also does 45x7 and maybe 4x5. I have one coming. It looks to be the best option for small volume.


Kent in SD

[Pere Casals]

What would you recommend for processing 8x10 BW film negatives in terms of tanks and drums?.

Best way to start is tray processing, IMHO. Develop inside a Paper Safe used as a tray. Close lights to move the sheet to the stop bath, then open lights after 30s and do the rest lights open, while you fix you can develop next sheet.

Trays allows agitation control, reduced agitation may help to preserve highlights in scenes with high dynamic range, as the development can be made compensating. This can only be made in trays, contiuous rotary agitation won't do that, and it would be risky when sheets are developed vertical in a tank because gravity helps bromide drags.

Rotary allows a low chem volume usage, but with trays you won't waste much chem in one shot, if you dilute it a bit (xtol 1:1 for example)

[Corran]

We cut time from rotary processing to pull highlights. For some, "constant" agitation is a benefit, not a drawback, as it is consistent. If using tubes I usually cut 25% from the development time to start with to compensate for the difference in agitation, then calculate N- development.

Test.

[Pere Casals]

Cutting time from a rotary processing is not the same than compensating. By cutting time the development in all the tonal range is equally affected.

Instead, in compensation the development is slowed in the highlights much more than in the mids or shadows. In tray development continuous agitation is also possible, but reduced agitation is not possible in rotary.

If scanning later this has not much importance, because tonal curve is easily edited, but if wanting to print optically then we may want to have lower densities in the highlights (relative to the mids) to print easier those highlights, and this is obtained by a compensation.

Contrary to what is told around, compensation is not obtained by developer exhaustion in the most exposed areas, what slows reaction is a higher concetration of free Bromide byproduct which works as a restrainer, selectively concetrated in the denser areas if not removed from the emulsion by agitation.

[Peter De Smidt]

Pere, you know perfectly well what Bryan meant.

[Corran]

+1

I see no practical differences in actual usage with appropriate times between rotary processing and tray (or other intermittent agitation methods). If I'm doing something more in the vein of actual compensation it's with extreme minimal agitation (semi-stand) and that's a whole other ball of wax.

Use whatever works for you. There is no magic bullet.

[Jim Noel]

There is a new product coming in 2 weeks from Stearman Press. It's the follow up to their highly successful sp-445 and is called the sp-810. Very easy to use and takes minimal chemistry. Also does 45x7 and maybe 4x5. I have one coming. It looks to be the best option for small volume.


Kent in SD

My problem with this device is that it takes too little chemistry which negated the use of highly diluted developers whichai use frequently.

[Pere Casals]

Pere, you know perfectly well what Bryan meant.

Peter, you know perfectly what I meant in my post, what Film Development Cookbook explains.

Reduced agitation is a resource that trays have and rotary not, cutting time in the rotary is not the same by far.


197878

[Pere Casals]

+1

I see no practical differences in actual usage with appropriate times between rotary processing and tray (or other intermittent agitation methods). If I'm doing something more in the vein of actual compensation it's with extreme minimal agitation (semi-stand) and that's a whole other ball of wax.

Use whatever works for you. There is no magic bullet.

In the tray you can make all, from continuous agitation to stand, with all the flavours in middle. I case you make semi-stand or stand ("extreme minimal agitation") the tray has an advantage as it is not prone to provocate bromide drags so any developer can be used with also no developer oxidation problems.

Using a Paper Safe as a tray makes it daylight convenient.

I use rotary for color film, and I'll use it in the future also for RA-4 in the ATL 2500.

[ic-racer]

What would you recommend for processing 8x10 BW film negatives in terms of tanks and drums? I’m only set up for medium format thus far and looking for options. Thanks for the suggestions.

I use a Jobo and 3005 drum. The drums are still available new and represent an excellent value based on used market prices.

[Ari]

Some people like tray processing, I never warmed to it.
If you're not going to use trays, save yourself time and money and bite the bullet. Get a Jobo 3005.
It's an expensive purchase at first, but it will last years, the learning curve is short, and is just about idiot-proof (ask me how I know).

[John Kasaian]

Trays or Unicolor drum (paper drum) is what I've used, and I'm notoriously lazy.
Just sayin'

[Corran]

In the tray you can make all

Well no, you can't do rotary development :rolleyes:. Regardless, the results are basically the same and we can chose our tools as needed to actually make work. I'll leave it at that.

[Pere Casals]

Well no, you can't do rotary development

Bryan, with trays you can do continuous agitation which is rotary without drawbacks. Compared to tray with continuous agitation rotary only has the drawback of oxydizing the developer, so some developers have to be refilled in mid course, or an antioxydant has to be added.

Developers like PMK tend to generate nasty general stain in rotary, for example.

When I have finished the ATL 2500+ retrofit probably I'll do some rotary BW because that rotary it's fully automated processing, we have all the drum collection including both Experts, you press a button and the machine takes the right one shot doses from bottles, but if having to manually operate a CPE then I see no convenience advantage for BW rotary, what I see is oxydations.

[interneg]

with trays you can do continuous agitation which is rotary without drawbacks.

A Jobo is usually going to be more consistent both in agitation and temperature control in most normal circumstances. And if you need matched densities, that matters. As for all the fluff about semi-stand etc, it's a half-assed, inconsistent non-solution for people who apparently want to waste the time they could use more usefully learning how to unsharp mask instead - which will always have a greater impact on apparent sharpness.

[Pere Casals]

A Jobo is usually going to be more consistent both in agitation and temperature control in most normal circumstances.

I've chem and air room temperature at 20ºC, so total consistence.

In most cases it's irrelevant having a little shift in the development degree, 20s more or less equivalent development is irrelevant, you adjust paper grade later.

What I obtain with reduced agitation, when I use it, is relatively less dense highlights compared with the mids. There are situations where you want that, night photography for example.

I night photography film sensitometric curve is deformated by the higher LIRF in the shadows and mids, while highlights don't have LIRF, in that situation you want to slow development in the highlights by not removing free bromide from the emulsion, so you obtain easier to print highlights that have been developed with a locally higher restrainer concentration.




As for all the fluff about semi-stand etc, it's a half-assed, inconsistent non-solution for people who apparently want to waste the time they could use more usefully learning how to unsharp mask instead - which will always have a greater impact on apparent sharpness.

What is a waste of time is having to make masks because we have not crafted the right printable negative. No doubt that USM masking adds acutance, and that masking is powerful, but if we make a negative that's easily printable like we want then we have an advantage.

I guess that we have two different ways, one is making a bullet proof linear negative that has flexibility for intensive image manipulations in the printing. The other way is crafting a negative that prints easy like we want, at the possible cost of less flexibility, because the compressions we make in the toe/shoulder have no way back.

No way is better than the other, it's just a personal choice, each way requires different skills, IMHO.

[radu_c]

Thanks to all for your comprehensive responses. I never tried tray development but it will really be a test of how dark my darkroom really is. Great idea with using a paper safe box. I’ll give it a shot, I have 11x14 trays nice and clean, should be good to go.

I was initially leaning towards drums only because of the ability to swap chemistry in daylight. There are some negative spirals custom made both for Jobo and for Paterson tanks. On a related note, why are Jobo tanks so expensive? Not the automatic processor, just a plastic cylindrical tank 500$?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pere Casals]

On a related note, why are Jobo tanks so expensive? Not the automatic processor, just a plastic cylindrical tank 500$?

The holes in the Expert drums are not cylinders ! This allows the chem to reach the sheet back and to remove the anti halation layer. It has to be a quite expensive mold, and with the low production this ends in those prices. Sure that it can be made way cheaper if a high production was there.

The expert drum is a very good system, who wants it... he has to pay...

But don't worry, with trays (Paper Safe) you have a top notch system that's even better from certain points of view. You may work with 3 paper safes in parallel, you can set a different time for each paper safe (N+/-) and when you have the sheets in the stop tray you may start the following batch, so it's even more productive !

Also the Expert is good for Foma, Shangai, etc Those films with old technology emulsions are scratched with even blowing on them, so the least you touch them (when wet) the better, while Kodak/Ilford sheets have no problem in the trays.

[Peter De Smidt]

The Expert tanks are expensive because they complicated, the tubes inside are bowed to allow solution to get to the back of the negatives, and because only a small number are sold. Consider, though, how much sheet film costs, both monetarily and in the time and effort needed to expose it.

[Bernice Loui]

During the mid 1990's got a Jobo processing system and expert drums. After that all sheet film was processed this way. The results were consistent, uniform and predictable using modest volumes of chemistry. Done tray processing, Nikkor 4x5 tanks, dip-dunk with hangers-tanks and all that, for modest volumes Jobo with expert tanks proved best overall.

Consistent, reliable, predictable processing of film is often NOT appreciated as this is many times one of the crucial factors and steps in print making. IMO, it is nearly impossible to recover from a poor film image be it from processing errors, processing damage or etc... High quality film processing is paramount to print making excellence. Anything less than the absolutely highest quality film processing is a waste of time, resources, and a LOT more.


Bernice

[Barry Wilkinson]

Anyone tried these...

https://20thcenturycamera.com

[Bernice Loui]

Jobo had a variation of these, tricky to load, works sort of OK..

IMO, trying to economize on sheet film processing is, "penny wise, pound foolish.".

FAR better off spending the required $ on a good working Jobo processor and jobs expert drums as needed.

The amount of grief poorly processed film or film damaged during processing, and other problems that can so easily happen during sheet film processing is often not appreciated until one looks back at the amount of time, resources and a LOT more wasted trying to deal with processed film problems. This is not to say a Jobo & Expert drums are the only way to achieve film processing excellence, it is one of the long proven ways to achieve this at modest film volumes, modest chemistry required and .... Zero wrong with dip-dunk, racks and all with nitrogen burst, Refema processor and ... these tend to be higher volume processing systems that might not fit the needs of a smaller dark room with modest film volumes to be processed.


Bernice



Anyone tried these...

https://20thcenturycamera.com

[Fred L]

Jobo had a variation of these, tricky to load, works sort of OK..

IMO, trying to economize on sheet film processing is, "penny wise, pound foolish.".

FAR better off spending the required $ on a good working Jobo processor and jobs expert drums as needed.

The amount of grief poorly processed film or film damaged during processing, and other problems that can so easily happen during sheet film processing is often not appreciated until one looks back at the amount of time, resources and a LOT more wasted trying to deal with processed film problems. This is not to say a Jobo & Expert drums are the only way to achieve film processing excellence, it is one of the long proven ways to achieve this at modest film volumes, modest chemistry required and .... Zero wrong with dip-dunk, racks and all with nitrogen burst, Refema processor and ... these tend to be higher volume processing systems that might not fit the needs of a smaller dark room with modest film volumes to be processed.


Bernice


If one has the budget, this is definitely the way to go. Super consistency, less chemistry needed...Mine has seen tons of use, but for some reason I'm kinda jonesing for the Stark processor.

[Fred L]

Developers like PMK tend to generate nasty general stain in rotary, for example.


I'm going to strongly disagree with this. Sorry, but unless you've ever processed PMK with rotary, this is bad intel

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm going to strongly disagree with this. Sorry, but unless you've ever processed PMK with rotary, this is bad intel

Yep. Bad theory + little experience = bad advice.

[Pere Casals]

Yep. Bad theory + little experience = bad advice.


Ignorance + Rudeness = xxxx

https://bergger.com/bergger-roto-additive-pour-pmk-250-ml.html?___store=bergger_fr&___from_store=bergger_en

https://bergger.com/media/catalog/product/cache/3/image/650x650/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/0/0/000_4094.jpg

197914

[Pere Casals]

I'm going to strongly disagree with this. Sorry, but unless you've ever processed PMK with rotary, this is bad intel

Fred, I'd recommned you to try the Bergger Roto-Additive for PMK, you will find that general stain decreases with PMK in rotary, we have found that it decreases it to the level in trays.

Of course there are recipes around that do the same....

If you are used to a higher general stain, there is no problem, at the end you may increase the paper grade to compensate the effect in MG papers of the blue blocking the general stain makes.

_____

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152482-Who%92s-using-PMK-for-rotary-jobo-processing&p=1501133&viewfull=1#post1501133

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152482-Who%92s-using-PMK-for-rotary-jobo-processing&p=1501174&viewfull=1#post1501174

[tgtaylor]

Before I got the Jobo 3005, I processed 8x10 sheets using a Jobo 2830. This is a print tank that will hold up to 1 11x14 sheet of paper (or film) or up to 2 sheets of 8x10. Although their used value has increased you can still find them for under $100. Whether you process 1 sheet or 2 at a time, you need to use the tank clips that will keep them in place and prevent them from moving around and coming into contact with itself or each other during processing. For 8x10 place the clips diametrically opposite each other on the inside ridges of the tank that are there for just that purpose. The ridges also allows for developer to reach the base side of the sheet and I have never experienced lines on the negatives from those ridges. Although the minimum volume of chemistry printed on the tank is 100mL, I use the manufactures volume: For Xtol 1:1 that's 100mL of stock + 100mL of water = 200mL of chemistry per sheet. I still use this tank when I have only 1 or 2 sheets to develop.

Thomas

[Vaughn]

I use a Jobo and 3005 drum. The drums are still available new and represent an excellent value based on used market prices.

So do I -- very happy with the system -- once I switched to a non-hardening fixer. Worth the cost (I have three 3005s and a 3006). And I can do tray development if for some reason the situation calls for it (I have to do trays for now for 11x14). I use a Unicolor motor base that has the auto reversing mechanism disengaged.

I rarely have a need for compensating development -- usually I am expanding the SBR on the film (alt processes)./

I have used Rollo and PyrocatHD successfully...tho Bergger 200 generally seemed to have a greater base-fog stain than most other films.

[Bernice Loui]

Been using PMK in a Jobo expert drum and Jobo processor since PMK was introduced in Gordon Hutchings "Book of Pyro" with very few to about zero problems.. That was in the 1990's.

Just cannot agree with the idea-belief Jobo processor & expert drum with PMK causes, "generate nasty general stain."

Show examples of this from your Jobo with expert drum negatives processed with PMK?


Feeding the troll on T-day, likely not a good idea,
Bernice

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~Originally Posted by Pere Casals, "Developers like PMK tend to generate nasty general stain in rotary, for example."


I'm going to strongly disagree with this. Sorry, but unless you've ever processed PMK with rotary, this is bad intel

[Luis-F-S]

If I have many sheets to process, I use 1 gal SS tanks which hold up to 6 8x10's in hangers in a SS water jacket. If I only have a few sheets, I process two 8x10's at a time in Unicolor 11x14 tanks on an Unicolor rotary base. Both in HC-110, get comparable results with both. L

[Jeroen]

A Jobo CPA 2 isn't very expensive, I use it with a Jobo 4550 drum and a 4511 Format Holder to develop 4x 8x10's at once. It may not be fully automated but I get *very* consistent development.

[ic-racer]

I have been doing very dilute development with Jobo for about 15 years. Just keep emptying and re-filling as needed. Usually about 5 or 6 times, depending on the dilution and efficacy of the developer components. Water bath between the developer changes can be used too, to slow down the process even more.

[John Layton]

My tray-technique involves a single (shuffle) presoak tray, then films get placed, face-up, into multiple (individual) developer trays placed into a much larger tray so each film gets exactly the amount of agitation they need (either en-mass by tilting big tray around or singly by tilting individual small trays), then back into shuffle trays for remaining steps. A bit of a logistical pain at first...but I'm used to this now and get very precise control in the development phase.

[Fred L]

while I currently use Jobo Expert tanks, I will sometimes still use Simma print drums on their roller base. The drum I use can do 4 4x5 sheets or a single 8x10. The Simma roller base has an eccentric wheel so it rocks side to side very slightly allowing the chems to slosh around a bit. It doesn't self reverse like some bases so t will flip it over if I remember. Very affordable way to process sheet film.

fwiw, the Simma cap will also fit an abs pipe (5" iirc), which I use for processing 7x17 negs.

[Ari]

To add to the chorus, and my first comment, the 3005 is the most fool-proof way of developing 8x10 sheet film.
In addition to trays, I've also tried the "cheap Jobo" method of using a print drum with clips.
This is a decent, cost-effective way to develop 8x10 (or larger).
It all seems great until you shoot the best portrait of your life, and open the drum to find the film stuck to the drum exactly where the subject's face was.
That's the moment I decided to get the 3005.

[cp_photo]

Does the Jobo 3005 work well for slightly-smaller than 8x10 sizes of film? I am specifically wondering about developing whole plate 6.5" x 8.5" film and 4" x 10" film in the 3005.

[Peter De Smidt]

I don't see why not. I regularly process 4x5 in a tank that goes up to 5x7.

[Vaughn]

Does the Jobo 3005 work well for slightly-smaller than 8x10 sizes of film? I am specifically wondering about developing whole plate 6.5" x 8.5" film and 4" x 10" film in the 3005.

The 3005 is designed for 5x7 to 8x10....so whole plate should be no problem. I had not thought about 4x10 before in a 3005 (I use a modified darkslide to get two 4x10s on a sheet of 8x10). I can not think of any reason 4x10 would not work well in a 3005. I'd be curious if any 4x10 users have gone this route.

[interneg]

I've chem and air room temperature at 20ºC, so total consistence.

In most cases it's irrelevant having a little shift in the development degree, 20s more or less equivalent development is irrelevant, you adjust paper grade later.

When you've got multiple sheets to process on a routine basis, consistency matters. A machine makes it much easier & 24c processing speeds things along. And if your claim is that tray processing allows for individual sheet alterations in timing, haven't you undermined that by saying that you can just adjust the grade at printing?


What I obtain with reduced agitation, when I use it, is relatively less dense highlights compared with the mids. There are situations where you want that, night photography for example.

Or you could just reduce the process time appropriately.


I night photography film sensitometric curve is deformated by the higher LIRF in the shadows and mids, while highlights don't have LIRF, in that situation you want to slow development in the highlights by not removing free bromide from the emulsion, so you obtain easier to print highlights that have been developed with a locally higher restrainer concentration.

This is symptomatic of both overthinking on the basis of half understood theory and lack of experience based understanding. Plenty of people make perfectly printable and aesthetically competent night pictures on film without resorting to excessive N- conniptions. Why? Because they don't get bogged down in trying to reproduce irrelevant tonalities.


What is a waste of time is having to make masks because we have not crafted the right printable negative. No doubt that USM masking adds acutance, and that masking is powerful, but if we make a negative that's easily printable like we want then we have an advantage.

Making a good, printable negative is easy. What I was taking issue with was the emphasis on agitation techniques that have extremely limited effects compared to unsharp masking or controlled fogging. And if done competently, masking has none of the tonal defects of excessive N- processing.


I guess that we have two different ways, one is making a bullet proof linear negative that has flexibility for intensive image manipulations in the printing. The other way is crafting a negative that prints easy like we want, at the possible cost of less flexibility, because the compressions we make in the toe/shoulder have no way back.

Rather than guessing, try the films. It's often about the steepness & separation of shadow gradient relative to maintaining separation in the highlights without compression. And whether you like punchier prints or ones with a large range of tonalities.

[tgtaylor]

To add to the chorus, and my first comment, the 3005 is the most fool-proof way of developing 8x10 sheet film.
In addition to trays, I've also tried the "cheap Jobo" method of using a print drum with clips.
This is a decent, cost-effective way to develop 8x10 (or larger).
It all seems great until you shoot the best portrait of your life, and open the drum to find the film stuck to the drum exactly where the subject's face was.
That's the moment I decided to get the 3005.

Yesterday morning I shot 2 sheets of 8x10 and decided to develop them that afternoon. With 2 or more sheets to process I have been using the 3005 but I decided to use the 2830 to see if filling the drum with water after the last rinse would improve the sheets removal. It did! It took about 4 liters of water to completely fill the tank but as I suspected the sheets lifted out as if lubricated - which they were with the water. When the water is completely drained from the tank they tend to cling to the sides which hinders their removal. But I have never experienced any scratches on the base and I suspect that those that did had loaded the sheets with the emulsion side to the wall instead of facing inward. Anyway if you use the 2830 to develop 1 or 2 sheets, it's worth the time to completely fill the tank with water to remove the sheets.

Thomas

[Pere Casals]

When you've got multiple sheets to process on a routine basis, consistency matters. A machine makes it much easier & 24c processing speeds things along. And if your claim is that tray processing allows for individual sheet alterations in timing, haven't you undermined that by saying that you can just adjust the grade at printing?

Ansel Adams primarily used sheet film developed in trays, but also Karsh and Weston, enough said ?

Temperature control/consistency in a Jobo is not that good for BW in summer, it can heat up the bath but it cannot refrigerate it if darkroom temperature is higher.

I've total consistence with tray processing, it requires a bit of attention to agitate in a consistent way. You can make inconsistent jobs in rotary if you want, there are many factors like developer freshness, accurate mix, film batch...

Being consistent or not it is a personal choice, it matters sometimes, not always. But consistency does not depends on rotary vs trays. Personally I prefer trays, I've only one thing aganist rotary: I like additional control from agitation to craft my negative like I want, which I use only some 1/5 of the times, but most of the times if it's a (personally) important shot.

I this case we cannot tell OP what's best, we may tell the nuances of different ways.

Anyway, no doubt trays is best for starting, because the low investment (a used paper safe) and total simplicity and no headaches.




Or you could just reduce the process time appropriately.

Interneg, not the same, with reduced agitation we selectively slow more the development in the highlights, it also may boost "microcontrast". You should be aware of that, aren't you?

Sometime ago I analyzed the result in several negatives for Steve Sherman, we analyzed the tonal dispersion in several textures compared to the full range in the negative, and what he has been saying is true, I've no doubt. You may want that effect or not for an image, but it's a resource we may use. With trays we dose that effect to the point we want: continuous, reduced, semi-stand and stand...

Understand me, YMMV. Trays vs rotary is not about what's best, it's about what we prefer for a certain job.




This is symptomatic of both overthinking on the basis of half understood theory and lack of experience based understanding.

Hey, interneg, don't go this way. Avoid personal disacreditation and all will be fine. Understood?



Plenty of people make perfectly printable and aesthetically competent night pictures on film without resorting to excessive N- conniptions. Why? Because they don't get bogged down in trying to reproduce irrelevant tonalities.

This is wrong, the N you may need depends on SBR you have in the shooting, some scenes require a powerful contraction, some not. If you are to make masks later you may allow higher densities in the neg, this is true... one may desing a good negative like Steve or he can make masks like you.

This is a personal choice. We have many powerful resources and each photographer/printer has his own set of preferred tools.

In photography there are image hunters and image sculptors, what are you?



Rather than guessing, try the films. It's often about the steepness & separation of shadow gradient relative to maintaining separation in the highlights without compression. And whether you like punchier prints or ones with a large range of tonalities


interneg, by now you should have understood that I don't guess, I calibrate.

This was only my second 8x10" shot, 4 years ago, I spent 4 weekends preparing that shot and by then I nailed all predicted densities before shutter release in each of those spots:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28693688313/


Now, 4 years later, I have a powerful self made software tool to speed up calibrations and I calibrate eaiser than I breath: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150045-New-darkroom-calibration-software


Forget personal disacreditation and you won't be rammed, it's up to you.

Please get used to debate without personal disacreditation and all will be fine, both we'll enjoy a nice technical debate, without mud.

Still I've a lot to learn, but also you.

[interneg]

Ansel Adams primarily used sheet film developed in trays, but also Karsh and Weston, enough said ?

Karsh used deep tanks and inspection. Weston used inspection too. If you have a decent number of sheets to process, and don't want the headaches of running deep tanks or have the urge to inspect your negs, a machine makes life a lot easier. And Adams spends a lot of his writings talking about how often he messed up important exposures & had to work to rectify them afterwards.



Temperature control/consistency in a Jobo is not that good for BW in summer, it can heat up the bath but it cannot refrigerate it if darkroom temperature is higher.

It isn't difficult to cool the machine down, besides which several models have cold water inlet valves or can be used on a temperature controlled water supply. If you're processing a few sheets of BW only, then trays are fine, but if colour etc and bigger quantities of film become necessary, then the Jobo becomes worth its weight in gold.



...Personally I prefer trays, I've only one thing aganist rotary: I like additional control from agitation to craft my negative like I want, which I use only some 1/5 of the times, but most of the times if it's a (personally) important shot

...with reduced agitation we selectively slow more the development in the highlights, it also may boost "microcontrast".

...Sometime ago I analyzed the result in several negatives for Steve Sherman, we analyzed the tonal dispersion in several textures compared to the full range in the negative, and what he has been saying is true, I've no doubt. You may want that effect or not for an image, but it's a resource we may use. With trays we dose that effect to the point we want: continuous, reduced, semi-stand and stand...

If you really knew anything of Karsh's technique (or many other photographers - this technique is as old as the hills) you would learn they were getting to the same end point by simpler methods. Aim your negative to the hardest grade you dare - by whatever means necessary - and your microcontrast & apparent sharpness will go up dramatically, even if you don't use an unsharp mask. You really don't need to fiddle with agitation regimes either - Karsh was using replenished DK-50 in deep tanks. Even if you are working with a single grade of paper you will very rarely need more than a couple of development times.

Oh, and film grain distribution follows a bell curve, thus the most apparent grain will be in the mid tone range of a particular film's characteristic curve, not at a specific point on a generic scale.




The rest of your (self defeating) threats you can take up with the moderators when they presumably have to turn up to scrub this thread (again).

[Pere Casals]

a machine makes life a lot easier.

Not my life :)

This is how I had the ATL 2500+ yesterday :) :) :), I make a new control electronics, I substitute the distributor+malta cross by 6 solenoid valves plus a servo... We have all the drums, Experts, etc and it will work nice when all fully automated, we plan to do a good job.

198050

It will make C-41, E-6 and RA-4, and some BW. For sure a share of the BW will be done in tray

This is the flowchart I'm implementing:

198051




It isn't difficult to cool the machine down, besides which several models have cold water inlet valves or can be used on a temperature controlled water supply.

This is interesting, our tap water is always under 20ºC. From your observation, I'll add that feature in the firmware, for BW if bath is over 20ºC then Control will open the bath water inlet valve until temp is in the right value.




but if colour etc and bigger quantities of film become necessary, then the Jobo becomes worth its weight in gold.

No doubt, we are to use 6 bath pro chem, so even a cpe2 would be a crucifixion. Also a minium amount of chem is used, so for color we have no doubts.





You really don't need to fiddle with agitation regimes either

I've been experimenting with agitation. The effect is irrelevant for the hybrid because Ps eats everything, but I find it quite useful for optic printing. I found that I easily pull a full zone in the highlights by controlling agitation, and this solves a part of the printing.




Oh, and film grain distribution follows a bell curve, thus the most apparent grain will be in the mid tone range of a particular film's characteristic curve, not at a specific point on a generic scale.

This depends on the film, for HP5 you have grain peaking in the mids, for TXP grain peaks in the shadows which adds the TX classic dramatism, but this is more for MF, in LF I don't see much the grain.

[interneg]

This is interesting, our tap water is always under 20ºC. From your observation, I'll add that feature in the firmware, for BW if bath is over 20ºC then Control will open the bath water inlet valve until temp is in the right value.

Check out section 5.9 in the ATL2x00 documentation - it's solenoid controlled already, so you should just need to find its terminals. The bits that tend to break in the Autolabs that are hard to repair are usually the control systems, on machines that are otherwise pretty repairable, so if you can make those parts more easily serviceable, then it might save a few from scrappage. Having to deal with Autolabs on a routine basis has convinced me that for my own purposes the CPP machines cause less down time. The CPP's are however drastically less idiot resistant - and this is in the context of having seen how many stupid things people can do with an ATL - thankfully rarely damaging anything other than their own film. Get a certified & calibrated thermometer too - even Jobo say not to rely purely on their own internal thermometer - their systems tend to use a 'drift through' approach to temperature control.



No doubt, we are to use 6 bath pro chem, so even a cpe2 would be a crucifixion. Also a minium amount of chem is used, so for color we have no doubts.

If you do anything bigger than 4x5, my opinion is that the best use of a CPE is to convert it into something like the TBE-2 tempering bath...



I've been experimenting with agitation. The effect is irrelevant for the hybrid because Ps eats everything, but I find it quite useful for optic printing. I found that I easily pull a full zone in the highlights by controlling agitation, and this solves a part of the printing.

If you find that easier to do than by cutting process time, so be it. At the end of the day it achieves the same effect. Go too far however & it'll flatten the mids.



This depends on the film, for HP5 you have grain peaking in the mids, for TXP grain peaks in the shadows which adds the TX classic dramatism, but this is more for MF, in LF I don't see much the grain.

Not quite - what you perceive as the 'midtone' isn't what the film perceives as such - where the grain is most apparent is where the film's characteristic curve (under the particular exposure & process conditions) believes the midtone to be located - rightly or wrongly.

[chaspics]

If you can find them, I've used Jobo, and Unicolor print drums and motor bases for years with excellent results. I don't even pre-rinse. Just reduce standard time by 15%.
Tray processing is an excellent option. Inexpensive and easy to practice. I don't recommend more than one sheet at a time.

[Michael Kadillak]

Yes, mechanical processes are preferred as long as the primary objective - tailored negative development can be attained. That is why I use gaseous burst (individual hangers can be pulled) and tray development (which is a human attempt at a mechanical process) with one significant caveat - the infrared monocle which is a game changer for development by inspection. I purchased a brand new CPP2 years ago and all of the tanks and used it twice once I experienced the negative density variability of one development time for all the film in the tank and that shut that process down rather quickly. Part of this justification was a function of needing to produce a negative to print on fixed paper grade Azo, but it does not stop there. Modern silver multi contrast printing papers (like Ilford) I contend have a bias for grades 3-4 producing more contract than the lower paper grades hence the need to ensure negatives are crafted specifically to these objectives. Why are they doing this? IMHO manufactures are formulating their photographic printing papers for the current analog economy trying to cast as wide a net of results satisfaction as possible. Yes, you can attain a "printable" negative with an enormous latitude of negative density and jump through various hoops doing it, but why not make the best negative possible given the costs of 8x10 sheet film (or for that matter any film these days)? I would also add tube reduced agitation development because you can adjust the individual development of the single sheet to the desired negative density.

My contention is that at the end of the day in order to optimize any process you need to own it from start to finish.

[Pere Casals]

an ATL

By now I control all components of the ATL 2500, it is a machine impressively well designed, but service can be a nightmare. Only there is a sensor that I don't understand: The arm has two 4-wire (instead 3 wire) Hall sensors that detect top and bottom positions, beyond "rotation detection" these are the single Hall sensors I'll interface as I removed the malta cross that has two: one for the zero point of the dumping nozzle and the other one for "nozze in place". Those Hall in the arm are a bit weird because they may also detect proximity or sense, lacking documentation I will substitue them by regullar Halls and I'll detect proximity by an additional way, so I can lower the arm speed before reaching the end point, if not the arm gets clogged when reaching the bottom position.

See here why this ATL was retired, the damaged gearing in the nozzle, moved by a Malta-Cross, that also distributes the air pressure to the right bottle:

198053

I remove anything that may be prone to fail to get a reliable operation.



an ATL - thankfully rarely damaging anything other than their own film. Get a certified & calibrated thermometer too - even Jobo say not to rely purely on their own internal thermometer

The internal PT probe (in the circulation pump area) has a calibration trimmer in the same cable, you have to disassemble a lot to reach it, it's inside the black box that contains the rotation motor and the circulation pump motor... But I've removed the Temp control from my electronics, I've an independent thermostat for that with a new probe, my electronics places the bath heating in "Auto" mode when the water levels are reached, with additional safety measures. This is a critical subsystem because if heating starts without water then all plastics will be melted. That Thermostat has embedded PID so heating will be stable like in good magnetic stirrers, in that way I avoid programming a PID in my control.

Process will start when the extrenal thermostat signals OK and when first bottle Temperature probe reads a high enough temperature, if we fill the 1st bottle just before process start then chem can be too cold and process has to be delayed until temp is suitable.




If you do anything bigger than 4x5, my opinion is that the best use of a CPE is to convert it into something like the TBE-2 tempering bath...

We can do 50x60cm RA-4 with those paper drums, but we also have the 57 and the 810 experts, so we plan to do all with the ATL.





If you find that easier to do than by cutting process time, so be it. At the end of the day it achieves the same effect. Go too far however & it'll flatten the mids.

Let me reiterate, I've calibrated film with different agitations and when I use reduced agitation I know exactly what I do, to me it's an important tool.




Not quite - what you perceive as the 'midtone' isn't what the film perceives as such - where the grain is most apparent is where the film's characteristic curve

Of course, by changing exposure you place more grain in a zone or other in the scene... but it's for sure that TX/TXP peaks in grain near film toe, I've no doubt in that.

[neil poulsen]

There is a new product coming in 2 weeks from Stearman Press. It's the follow up to their highly successful sp-445 and is called the sp-810. Very easy to use and takes minimal chemistry. Also does 45x7 and maybe 4x5. I have one coming. It looks to be the best option for small volume.


Kent in SD

I would be more interested in the film holder that they use, than the tank. For one thing, it's a daylight system, and that introduces variability into the process.

As a result, I long ago decided to dip and dunk film in the dark. I do this with both medium format and 4x5 and obtain consistent results.

But 8x10 film is too large for the 4x5 process that I use. So, I've been experimenting with an 8x10 dip and dunk film holder sold by Calumet in their heyday. Used as manufactured, this device leaves surge marks, so I've customized it to reduce this effect. I would be interested in seeing the Steerman device and how effective it might be.

I bought and have been using one of the reduced developer tanks that Vinny sold. If interested, I could provide dimensions. While they might not get the professional quality tank that he fabricated, it would be easy enough to make their own 8x10 tank to any dimensions and volume that they needed.

[Two23]

I would be more interested in the film holder that they use, than the tank. For one thing, it's a daylight system, and that introduces variability into the process.

As a result, I long ago decided to dip and dunk film in the dark. I do this with both medium format and 4x5 and obtain consistent results.

But 8x10 film is too large for the 4x5 process that I use. So, I've been experimenting with an 8x10 dip and dunk film holder sold by Calumet in their heyday. Used as manufactured, this device leaves surge marks, so I've customized it to reduce this effect. I would be interested in seeing the Steerman device and how effective it might be.

I bought and have been using one of the reduced developer tanks that Vinny sold. If interested, I could provide dimensions. While they might not get the professional quality tank that he fabricated, it would be easy enough to make their own 8x10 tank to any dimensions and volume that they needed.


They don't use film holders. This is a merger of tray processing and a covered tank. I should be getting one in the next week or two. Here's a video showing how it works. Looks great for someone like me who will only be doing a few sheets at a time and doesn't have a dark room. The fact it does all three formats I use (4x5, 5x7, 8x10) makes it very versatile. The SP-810 has been in development for two years now and looks pretty well engineered. I can load this in my bathroom and use it in my kitchen.:) Will also do Land dry plates easily. I wouldn't write it off so quickly--it looks good. I saw one at Jason Lane's house and was impressed. Let's see how it works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WdzqOWl4h8&feature=youtu.be


Kent in SD

[interneg]

Only there is a sensor that I don't understand: The arm has two 4-wire (instead 3 wire) Hall sensors that detect top and bottom positions, beyond "rotation detection" these are the single Hall sensors I'll interface as I removed the malta cross that has two: one for the zero point of the dumping nozzle and the other one for "nozze in place". Those Hall in the arm are a bit weird because they may also detect proximity or sense, lacking documentation I will substitue them by regullar Halls and I'll detect proximity by an additional way, so I can lower the arm speed before reaching the end point, if not the arm gets clogged when reaching the bottom position.


I think it may be to do with the disposal of wash water/ waste chemistry - the reclaimed chemistry goes into one of the six tubes into the storage bottles and the waste/ rinses are drained between them.

[Pere Casals]

Those I mention with 4 wires detect elevation of the drum, top and bottom positions.

Those two for the disposal chem nozzle have 3 wires: One detecs the reference position, and the other detects each additional step in the a Malta cross.

[interneg]

Those I mention with 4 wires detect elevation of the drum, top and bottom positions.

Those two for the disposal chem nozzle have 3 wires: One detecs the reference position, and the other detects each additional step in the a Malta cross.

What you want is pp.34-35 of the service manual (http://luigipasto.com/files/documents/joboatl23service.pdf) - OK, it's for ATL2 & 3, but the changes to make the ATL2x00 machines were not to do with these parts of the circuit design as far as I can tell.

[Drew Wiley]

Garsh. Ansel and Karsh and EW did things a certain way, so nothing is evidently better than the way they did things. Ben Franklin hunted turkeys with a blunderbuss, so, he bein' so smart n' all that, there must not be any better way to bag a turkey. Oddly, my wife went out the day after Thanksgiving and picked up another turkey half-price, even though neither of us even owns a blunderbuss. ... But my main objection to Jobos is that they're simply revved up too much, even at the lowest speed setting. Unless you use a high volume of solution, or tweak it, or displace the oxygen with something inert like argon, there are issues in my opinion. That's why my own drum processors have a much lower speed options (plus a much stronger gearmotor capable of handling bigger drums, which in turn are designed to fill and drain much faster than Jobo drums). For sheet film work, I prefer trays; but it really doesn't matter much in the end if your turkey still comes out tasty and fully cooked.

[dodphotography]

I tray developed for the first time in a while tonight. While the results look great ... jeez, I was freaking out.

1.) I used 8x10 flat bottom trays, per my mentor. I struggled feeling the film and being able to grap the bottom sheet cleanly. My mentor advised me that she doesn't like channeled trays, that the developer pools inside those channels and can cause uneven development.
2.) Upon transfering the film from prewash to developer, threw on some gloves super fast and instantly ripped them off. I couldn't feel the sheets at all, period. They were your standard medical blue nitrile gloves. So I'm not too happy about soupin bare handed in the long run of things, who knows... cancer maybe?


HELL OF A LOT FASTER than doing 1 at a time in my Patteron Orbital Tank. I processed 7, no uneveness or scratches. Since I have access to a darkroom at work, I'm able to shoot and process daily so I only needed to turn to trays after a long thanksgiving break / weekend which made a little backlog.

[Vaughn]

As long as it is not a pyro developer, you'll live long and prosper. Some folks develop an allergic reaction to metol over time.

I've used trays with channels for a few decades, but then usually one at a time in a tray and emulsion up -- constant agitation never allows liquid to 'pool'. Whichever works!

[interneg]

constant agitation never allows liquid to 'pool'.

I think a lot of these myths about tray patterns come from people who've had marks as a result of using too small a tray & have blamed vaguely understood fluid dynamics for their error. That Paterson style trays jump quite significantly from 10x12" to 12x16" probably exacerbates the urge to use too small a tray!

[Nodda Duma]

There is a new product coming in 2 weeks from Stearman Press. It's the follow up to their highly successful sp-445 and is called the sp-810. Very easy to use and takes minimal chemistry. Also does 45x7 and maybe 4x5. I have one coming. It looks to be the best option for small volume.


Kent in SD

I’ve been using the production prototype tray you saw quite a bit and still really like it. I think you’ll be happy with it when you get yours.

-Jason

[Nodda Duma]

My problem with this device is that it takes too little chemistry which negated the use of highly diluted developers whichai use frequently.


Jim you can fill it up with half-a-gallon of chemicals if you want.. the minimal amount that SP advertises is just that... the minimum amount to get good results, but you can put a lot more in.

[tomhamp]

FWIW,

Have tried trays in the past and found I could not reliably avoid scratching the negatives with the corners of sheets during shuffling.

Was using Picker’s methods.

I could heartily recommend the BTZS tubes also...if temperature control is important there is the Zone VI temperature sensor, which adjusts development time according to temperature of the water bath in which the tubes float.

Picker said at the time that the adjustment curve was based on Tri-X time/temperature curve from Kodak...I reverse-engineered it and have a copy somewhere, but I suspect it might be of limited need if doing hybrid scanning-processing.

Cheers,
Tom


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Michael Kadillak]

Tray processing has some guidelines that take the risk out of the equation. First is to use a tray size one larger than the sheet film size. I use 11x14 trays for 8x10. Secondly, use plenty of developing solution. Thirdly, use a water pre wash and lastly, practice your shuffling routing in the water pre soak and don't freak out.

I use trays that have the raised buttons on the bottoms of my trays (it makes it so much easier to get my fingers under the sheets than with a flat bottomed tray) and develop emulsion side up with zero problems. If I tray develop with Pyro I use a respiratory mask during the development cycle. Just takes that risk out of play completely. Lastly, a quality infrared monocle I have been using for over 10 years now is absolutely invaluable. I can see the sheets in the tray and see the image coming up in the developer. I can actually see in the first 45 seconds of tray development how accurate my exposure was and where adjustments in development are needed. It is a tool that works with precision.

[piton]

The 3005 is designed for 5x7 to 8x10....so whole plate should be no problem. I had not thought about 4x10 before in a 3005 (I use a modified darkslide to get two 4x10s on a sheet of 8x10). I can not think of any reason 4x10 would not work well in a 3005. I'd be curious if any 4x10 users have gone this route.

I can confirm the the 3005 works just fine with 4x10 B&W and 8x10 E6 cut in half.
I have not tried 2 4x10 films in a single tube as I think there is a chance they could wander and end up overlapping.
Bryan

[Drew Wiley]

Ditto to what Michael mentioned - oversized tray, ample solution, dimpled bottom stainless steel in a larger still tray acting as a surrounding water temp jacket , emulsion up. But I do it via a compensation timer (no infrared glasses), and have complete predictability.

[Vaughn]

I can confirm the the 3005 works just fine with 4x10 B&W and 8x10 E6 cut in half.
I have not tried 2 4x10 films in a single tube as I think there is a chance they could wander and end up overlapping.
Bryan

Thanks -- and two 4x10s sounds risky.

I tray develop 8x10 in the 12x16 trays (rarely now) and 11x14 in 14x18 trays.

[radii]

Go too far however & it'll flatten the mids.




Does constant agitation flatten the mids?