Developing tank advice

[jdurr]

I shoot 4x5 and normally process my own negatives. I have a "portable" darkroom and use three trays.

My question is: What is the consensus best/easiest tank system for processing multiple sheets at once?

Thanks for your input.

J

[j.e.simmons]

I use hangers and tanks, both stainless and hard rubber.

[Wayne]

Trays are the best tank for me for b&w.

[nolindan]

If I only process a few sheets then I use a tray.

Otherwise, I use a Jobo tank with 4x5 spirals, with two spirals I can do 12 sheets at once. I put the tank on a motor base for continuous agitation.

[Easton Soule]

I have used the Stearman Press SP-445 developing tank to great success in small batch developing. It holds 4 sheets of 4x5 film and takes only 16oz of chemical.

Plus I haven't noticed any uneven development of sky areas which is a bonus

[Two23]

Stearman Press SP445. So easy I've even used it in the field from the back of my car. Very easy to load, compact, takes minimal chemicals. If you think you'll ever shoot something bigger get the SP810. You can process any sheets or plates in it up to 8x10 size. It's a tray you can use in daylight.:)


Kent in SD

[Myriophyllum]

A Jobo 3010, hand rolled works fine... for more comfort a motor roller or CPP.
Up to ten sheets at a time.

[BrianShaw]

Another suggestion for the Stearman Press SP-445.

[Merg Ross]

Trays are the best tank for me for b&w.

Wayne, I agree.

When I worked at a commercial lab for a few years, we used hangers and tanks. Results were fine for the clients, however in my opinion, truly even development was never achieved.

Later, when I started my own business, all processing was done in trays. Twelve 4x5 sheets in an 8x10 tray, always with a pre-soak. Still my preferred method for processing sheet film, although I did try the Combi-Tank at one time.

[Tin Can]

I find hangers and tanks are something I can do

I use trays for single film up to 14X36 inch sheet

My tanks can process 16-4X5 in one go on 4up hangers

I CANNOT shuffle, my hands are arthritic, so as above

We all must adapt to fragility of age

[jdurr]

Thanks for all the input.

[tomwilliams]

J, I like the Stearman SP-445 if I have just a few negatives to develop. If I have more than 8 negatives, I start to find washing, drying, and reloading the SP-445 tedious, and use hangers and tanks instead, even though that method requires total darkness.

[Neal Chaves]

I find hangers and tanks are something I can do

I use trays for single film up to 14X36 inch sheet

My tanks can process 16-4X5 in one go on 4up hangers

I CANNOT shuffle, my hands are arthritic, so as above

We all must adapt to fragility of age

I think if you research it that you will find true arthritis is quite rare. I learned about this lab from weapons work. The national labs were using them for security checks, and VA has used them to detect self-medication but they have a great general health profile you can have done. www.arltma.com

[Tin Can]

Thank you for your concern

I used heavy duty power hammers, drills, saws and rode motorcycles all my life

My hands are claws, little flex, Dupuytren’s contracture, Trigger Finger

I have far worse problems, but very happy at almost 72 to have little pain

I cook all my own local farmer food meals

I feel way better than 10 years ago when I was in wheelchair and 40 lbs heavier

Also have severe Glaucoma

One Day at a Time

:cool:





I think if you research it that you will find true arthritis is quite rare. I learned about this lab from weapons work. The national labs were using them for security checks, and VA has used them to detect self-medication but they have a great general health profile you can have done. www.arltma.com

[John Layton]

This will be a long post…and perhaps a bit controversial or at least a bit provocative and “feather-ruffling” - so please bear with me…or don’t!

Years ago…I spoke with Gordon Hutchings (The Book of Pyro author), who went on at length about the advantages of tray-processing a single negative at a time. (Gordon also mentions this in his Pyro books). My problem with this approach was that it would just take too long to do all of my films this way…particularly after returning from an outing where I may have exposed a large number of films.

But then by some miracle the lightbulb lit…and I came up with using a single, very large tray, within which sit a number of smaller trays - as you will see in the photo below:

221098

(Note in the photo that there are a number of 8x10 trays, with the first being placed before a 20x24 tray (within which sit six 5x7 trays), and the remaining five 8x10 trays being placed after the 20x24 tray).

The way this works: I place six (4x5 or 5x7) negatives, face up, into the first (8x10) tray, which is a presoak to which I’ve added a bit of photo-flo. After three minutes of very gentle shuffling, all the negatives go, one by one (again, face-up) into their own smaller (5x7) trays, which are themselves arrayed in one large (20x24) tray.

After the transfer is complete, I then pick up the entire large tray and rock it around gently for one minute, with the remaining agitation cycles being timed depending upon my desired contrast and density ranges.

Furthermore, I may take this a step further and give one or more of the little trays its own specific agitation cycle, if that or those particular negatives need this. Keeping track of those negatives is usually a matter of carefully notching a corner as these films come out of their holders.

Once the developing stage is complete, all the films get transferred (one by one, in the same order as they’d been placed in the developer) into the first of three water bath trays…but this time face down…as without the added protection of the photo-flo, the films are a bit more vulnerable to scratching, regardless of whatever added protection might exist from the degree of emulsion hardening which may have occurred from one of my staining/hardening (pyro or pyrocat) developers.

After shuffling through the three water baths (with one complete top to bottom shuffle in each tray), the negatives go into the fixing bath (TF-4), and get gently shuffled there (again, face down) for either five minutes (for “traditional” film), or seven minutes (for t-grained films) - and following this the films are washed for a total of fifteen minutes prior to photo-flowing and hanging in the drying cabinet.

The thing about giving each negative its own developing tray has some real advantages. First among these, at least from my point of view, is that the agitation cycles are much more accurate, defined, and controllable. Think about this…if you are shuffling several negatives in one developing tray, with the idea that by going through the pile in timed cycles - do you think this equates to any single negative in that pile being agitated but once during that cycle…and that by adjusting the timing and/or shuffling speed of these cycles, you’ve accurately controlled the actual agitation intervals for each negative? Hardly. What is really happening in that pile is that all of the negatives are, to some degree (so long as you are shuffling) always in motion.

Furthermore, thinking that you can work around this by simply shuffling faster to achieve a longer “quiet interval” can be very risky in that this will increase the potential of scratching one or more negatives, and can also build up contrast needlessly. Also, when the pile of film is “quiet” in the developing tray, do you think that there is enough space above the emulsion side of the closely packed films to allow for a truly meaningful developer exchange and local exhaustion scenario? Sometimes I wonder about this.

At any rate…finally, keep in mind that prior to starting in with the above processing scenario, I did a number of “lights-on” tests with sacrificial films and developer - to make sure that the films were each being agitated equally in the developer…and that there were no problems with films either sticking to the trays or floating upwards, noting that the 10oz of developer per tray was more than enough to keep the films happy.

Jeesh…I guess I’m really sticking my neck out here! And yes…I do realize full well that many of you get stupendous results by shuffling your negatives through your developing trays (as I did before this) - so maybe I’ll just be quiet for now and go back outside to rake a few more leaves! Bye!

[Michael R]

Seems like what you’re doing here is the slosher thing but without the slosher :).


This will be a long post…and perhaps a bit controversial or at least a bit provocative and “feather-ruffling” - so please bear with me…or don’t!

Years ago…I spoke with Gordon Hutchings (The Book of Pyro author), who went on at length about the advantages of tray-processing a single negative at a time. (Gordon also mentions this in his Pyro books). My problem with this approach was that it would just take too long to do all of my films this way…particularly after returning from an outing where I may have exposed a large number of films.

But then by some miracle the lightbulb lit…and I came up with using a single, very large tray, within which sit a number of smaller trays - as you will see in the photo below:

221098

(Note in the photo that there are a number of 8x10 trays, with the first being placed before a 20x24 tray (within which sit six 5x7 trays), and the remaining five 8x10 trays being placed after the 20x24 tray).

The way this works: I place six (4x5 or 5x7) negatives, face up, into the first (8x10) tray, which is a presoak to which I’ve added a bit of photo-flo. After three minutes of very gentle shuffling, all the negatives go, one by one (again, face-up) into their own smaller (5x7) trays, which are themselves arrayed in one large (20x24) tray.

After the transfer is complete, I then pick up the entire large tray and rock it around gently for one minute, with the remaining agitation cycles being timed depending upon my desired contrast and density ranges.

Furthermore, I may take this a step further and give one or more of the little trays its own specific agitation cycle, if that or those particular negatives need this. Keeping track of those negatives is usually a matter of carefully notching a corner as these films come out of their holders.

Once the developing stage is complete, all the films get transferred (one by one, in the same order as they’d been placed in the developer) into the first of three water bath trays…but this time face down…as without the added protection of the photo-flo, the films are a bit more vulnerable to scratching, regardless of whatever added protection might exist from the degree of emulsion hardening which may have occurred from one of my staining/hardening (pyro or pyrocat) developers.

After shuffling through the three water baths (with one complete top to bottom shuffle in each tray), the negatives go into the fixing bath (TF-4), and get gently shuffled there (again, face down) for either five minutes (for “traditional” film), or seven minutes (for t-grained films) - and following this the films are washed for a total of fifteen minutes prior to photo-flowing and hanging in the drying cabinet.

The thing about giving each negative its own developing tray has some real advantages. First among these, at least from my point of view, is that the agitation cycles are much more accurate, defined, and controllable. Think about this…if you are shuffling several negatives in one developing tray, with the idea that by going through the pile in timed cycles - do you think this equates to any single negative in that pile being agitated but once during that cycle…and that by adjusting the timing and/or shuffling speed of these cycles, you’ve accurately controlled the actual agitation intervals for each negative? Hardly. What is really happening in that pile is that all of the negatives are, to some degree (so long as you are shuffling) always in motion.

Furthermore, thinking that you can work around this by simply shuffling faster to achieve a longer “quiet interval” can be very risky in that this will increase the potential of scratching one or more negatives, and can also build up contrast needlessly. Also, when the pile of film is “quiet” in the developing tray, do you think that there is enough space above the emulsion side of the closely packed films to allow for a truly meaningful developer exchange and local exhaustion scenario? Sometimes I wonder about this.

At any rate…finally, keep in mind that prior to starting in with the above processing scenario, I did a number of “lights-on” tests with sacrificial films and developer - to make sure that the films were each being agitated equally in the developer…and that there were no problems with films either sticking to the trays or floating upwards, noting that the 10oz of developer per tray was more than enough to keep the films happy.

Jeesh…I guess I’m really sticking my neck out here! And yes…I do realize full well that many of you get stupendous results by shuffling your negatives through your developing trays (as I did before this) - so maybe I’ll just be quiet for now and go back outside to rake a few more leaves! Bye!

[Mark Sampson]

Some interesting thoughts here. I'll just add that you should avoid the old Nikor stainless tanks. I ruined a lot of images using one of those for 5 or 6 years, when it was my only option.

[Eric Woodbury]

Started with trays. Then Jobo for a time. Now ABS tubes (similar to BTZS tubes).

I couldn't shuffle without problems. So when using trays, it was one at a time. That was a lot of 'dark time'. Tubes float in a tray of water for temp stability. Must be careful of over agitation since they are so fun to spin. For stop and fix, I remove the films from tube and finish in trays.

I use an XTOL equivalent developer and WD2H+ developer for most everything.

[esearing]

+1 for the SP-445 for 4 negatives or less. The Yankee or FR square tanks are easy to use too and hold more negatives, but can not be inverted so you end up sloshing some chemistry out when agitating side to side. The square tanks do make good wash tanks if you need to do another run through the SP-445. I tend to develop single sheets and have learned to manage 2 SP-445 tanks if in a hurry .

[otto.f]

+1 for the SP-445 for 4 negatives or less .

+1 too. I have an extra pair of slides so I could do 8 films in two runs with 1 litre solution in total, but I mostly come home with 4 sheets. To be sure to keep it dry when agitating, I put a piece of gaffer tape over the lid, which is closing ok, but still.

[Tin Can]

Handy for 3X4 as the tank is adjustable


Some interesting thoughts here. I'll just add that you should avoid the old Nikor stainless tanks. I ruined a lot of images using one of those for 5 or 6 years, when it was my only option.

[David Schaller]

I use a Jobo 2520 tank and reel for up to 6 4x5 negatives at a time. I use it for manual inversion, as I would with roll films, so I use the same intermittent agitation scheme. With Pyrocat or D-23, the cost of filling the tank is negligible. If a particular negative needs a big N minus, or plus, I would develop it alone in a tray. But most of my negatives get N-1, or N-2, so I can do them in batches in the Jobo tank.

[Paul Ron]

i love my nikor ss tank when i have enough film to justify using it. otherwise trays work fine the rest of the time.

[kmallick]

i love my nikor ss tank when i have enough film to justify using it. otherwise trays work fine the rest of the time.

I have had good luck with Nikor stainless steel tanks too. Pulling out 12 good chromes in one development and hanging them one at a time is the best feeling ever (not that b&ws or C41s are any less fun). Yes I have screwed up a couple of times that ruined a few sheets, but I like how it allows me to develop 12 sheets at a time.

I also would like to suggest considering Stearman Press SP-810 as a versatile tray developer that is adaptable to 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10.

[sharktooth]

If I'm doing multiple sheets I'll use a Jobo inversion tank with a 6 sheet spiral reel, but only use 4 sheets to avoid problems.

I've also been thinking about using a 4 sheet stainless steel rack in a tray, but haven't tried it yet. I'm thinking the rack would prevent scuffing of the sheets by keeping them from making contact with each other or with the tray. I don't process enough film to justify filling a whole tank, but something like this might be more practical for a few sheets. Has anyone tried processing film using racks in a tray? If so, are there any issues to be aware of?

[Scraps]

I like using simple 8x10 trays for 4x5s. I had a tank once that I would agitate manually, but, as you can expect, the edges were over-developed. I probably didn't have the right touch. Sounds like people have success with Jobos.

[Ulophot]

+1 for the SP-455 as well. Daylight processing capability is what led me to it; I had to save up for a while. Results are great, maintains temp well, gives consistent results. Just follow carefully the recommended agitation routine (video on the site), including reversal. I had some challenges with evenness before I got this squared away. I use it for single-sheet testing, but have found that developer flow through the second, empty holder can lead to extra density areas. Facing a one or two sheets outwards, or putting a dummy, processed discard sheet in the second holder solves the issue.

For larger runs, I use a Jobo 4323 tank and the two reels that came with it, each holding 6 4x5 sheets. I have a Cibachrome roller base that is still holding up. Evenness has always been excellent. I initially thought I could load the film into the reels without shelling out for the pricey loader, but soon purchased one. Other reels may be easier; I have no idea about all the Jobo tank numbers and models. Not exactly what I'd call portable; YRMV.

[rjmeyer314]

I use a Yankee tank for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4, 3 1/4 x 4 1/4, and 4 x 5. I also have Kodak dip tanks that I use sometimes, but only if I have them full from developing 5 x 7 or 8 x 10.

[John Layton]

I also have an old Yankee tank, but have only used this for film washing. Recently I've been thinking that it might be nice to press the Yankee into service to process 4x5's - especially as this tank has twelve film slots...but I'm feeling a bit unsure about how to agitate films in this tank in a manner which avoids artifacts. Anybody? RJ?

[ottluuk]

I think Paterson Orbital deserves a mention here. It's basically an 8 x 10 tray with a daylight lid, funnel and a funky base (motorised or manual) that gives a swaying rotation, a bit like the last rounds of a spinning top. With dividers, you can set it up for four 4x5s, two 5x7s or a single 8x10. There are no holders so it's dead easy to load and you can use it for less common sizes with no extra trouble. 9x12 cm, 4x10", half plate...
Obviously there is a catch. The catch is that in my experience it works well either in constant agitation mode with very small amount of developer (close to how it was originally intended to be used for processing prints) or filled almost to the brim for stand development. With "normal" amounts of fluid you get problems – from negs lifting over the dividers to surge marks/uneven development to developer sloshing out of the corners if agitated too vigorously. This rules out quite a few developer/dilution options.
The Spearman Press SP-8x10 seems to be a new variation on the same basic idea (daylight tray with removable dividers) – but with a more generous volume and no "orbiting". Worth a look if you ever intend to mix formats.

All that said.. if you shoot a lot and prefer repeatable results to experimenting with development regimes, a Jobo Expert Drum is at least worth investigating.

[Tom Monego]

I didn't like using trays, I had a Yankee tank, lots of sloshing, was never sure I was getting proper agitation. I then got a Nikor tank, the tank is for 2 220 reels, so it is a little big for the sheet film cage, prone to pistoning with inversion agitation, so I put a thin plastic pipe to hold the cage, works well. Loading the film you have to be careful or there can be touching. Once you get everything figured out it a nice tank, holds 12 4x5 sheets. It is almost impossible told while the cage is wet.

[tundra]

When I was researching low agitation development earlier this year, I incidentally ended up also researching sheet film development technique. Low agitation is just merciless if you have any kind of developer trapping or flow problems along the edges of negs.

I found that open tank processing of sheet film with minimal 'pinch' type film holders was the only way I could avoid bromide drag problems. Frame hangers - or worse still - the Yankee Tank, yielded nothing but pain and suffering. Similarly, I found that roll/35mm film is best done on Nikor stainless reels with relatively wide spiral spacing. Additionally, I put a rubber plug at the bottom of the reel to space it off the bottom the the developer tank.

I realize that not everyone does low agitation, but since this approach gives me good results for the most demanding case, I also use it for the less demanding, normal agitation case as well.

[esearing]

I realize that not everyone does low agitation, but since this approach gives me good results for the most demanding case, I also use it for the less demanding, normal agitation case as well.

Initial agitation of 2-3 minutes seems to give me the most even results especially with open sky. It also seems to eliminate the edge holder effect on the SP-445.

[esearing]

I also have an old Yankee tank, but have only used this for film washing. Recently I've been thinking that it might be nice to press the Yankee into service to process 4x5's - especially as this tank has twelve film slots...but I'm feeling a bit unsure about how to agitate films in this tank in a manner which avoids artifacts. Anybody? RJ?

I used one for years and did 4-6 pieces of film in it. I would put it in a tray and slide side to side, and then tilt side to side letting it drop. Any spillage would be dumped back in. I just got tired of losing that many sheets in one session if there were problems so have moved to single sheet processing, maybe two.

[tundra]

Initial agitation of 2-3 minutes seems to give me the most even results especially with open sky. It also seems to eliminate the edge holder effect on the SP-445.


I routinely prewash for 3 minutes and continuously agitate for 2 min initially. Nonetheless, anything except pinch hangers and widely spaced reels gave me bromide drag irrespective of whether I was doing Semistand or Extreme Minimal Agitation.

[esearing]

I routinely prewash for 3 minutes and continuously agitate for 2 min initially. Nonetheless, anything except pinch hangers and widely spaced reels gave me bromide drag irrespective of whether I was doing Semistand or Extreme Minimal Agitation.

What developer are you using? If it contains potassium bromide try making it without the bromide. Example there are variations of Pyrocat that do not include PB. Also do you use photoflo in your tanks? It leaves a film behind and gives odd edge problems. It is very hard to remove after a few uses on plastic tanks and sheet holders.

[Tin Can]

Tundra

What are you using as Pinch Type Hangers?

and how

Thanks in advance

[j.e.simmons]

Thinking about that, esearing may be right. I’ve developed hundreds of EMA negatives without bromide drag, but I’m using Pyrocat P and M which do not have the KBr.

[tundra]

The drag problems are noted with Pyrocat-HD which - as you say - does have KBr.

I do use Photoflo, but not in the tanks used for development or fixing. I use open tank development in Kodak 1/2 gal rubber tanks for everything except 220 reels where I use a Nikor stainless tank, but again, open in the dark. For sheet film, I've cut the bottom off a 1 gal water jug and I mix 500ml water + 2.5 ml Photoflo 200 + 1/2 oz Isoproply alcohol in it to make a final rinse working solution.

[tundra]

I use hangers of this kind and a 1/2 gal Kodak rubber tank: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/mN4AAOSwvRFgvjmU/s-l300.jpg

You can also use X-Ray film clips but you have to figure out a way to suspend them.

[tundra]

Thinking about that, esearing may be right. I’ve developed hundreds of EMA negatives without bromide drag, but I’m using Pyrocat P and M which do not have the KBr.

Yes, that does seem reasonable. The worst bromide drag I ever saw was with Semistand development of very old Plus-X sheet film from the 1970s. This disappeared entirely when I used D-23 instead of Pyrocat-HD.

Are the results otherwise different with Pyrocat P/M viz. HD?

[j.e.simmons]

I use the same times as I used with HD and don’t see any significant difference.

I use Kodak tanks and regular hangers.

[alt.kafka]

I mostly use the SP-445, and occasionally BTZS tubes.

[Tin Can]

I use those clips for drying only

I worry about contact in the tanks, as it flops about


I use hangers of this kind and a 1/2 gal Kodak rubber tank: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/mN4AAOSwvRFgvjmU/s-l300.jpg

You can also use X-Ray film clips but you have to figure out a way to suspend them.

[_tf_]

+1 too. I have an extra pair of slides so I could do 8 films in two runs with 1 litre solution in total, but I mostly come home with 4 sheets. To be sure to keep it dry when agitating, I put a piece of gaffer tape over the lid, which is closing ok, but still.

I was going to get a second set of slides, but realized the SP-445 slides are so easy to dry this isn't necessary, you can just shake them off, wipe with a suitable cloth and they are ready to reload without issues. [FWIW, I find the SP+445 so much easier to use than the Jobo reel, I'd rather do 2 runs with the SP-445 to develop 6 sheets than use the reel. But I wish there was an 8 sheet version of the SP tank to speed things up.]

[tundra]

I use those clips for drying only

I worry about contact in the tanks, as it flops about

I've run into that myself, but the fix is to pick a tank large enough for the number of sheets in question. for 1-4 sheets (my most usual case) I use a 1/2 gal rubber tank. For more than that, something like a 1 gal Tupperware tub of appropriate shape/size is the better choice.

Bear in mind that with semistand, there is only the initial 2 min agitation and one other at midpoint, so there is not a lot of film motion during the development cycle. That said, I HAVE had to learn to be careful when using these clips after a number of unfortunate instances of scratching.

More to the point, with Pyrocat-HD at least, these are the only clips that reliably avoided bromide drag. The frame style hangers were a disaster. I am looking forward to mixing some Pcat without KBr to see if that is more forgiving.

[Tin Can]

Perhaps I will try those clips top and bottom with weights

I run gas burst


I've run into that myself, but the fix is to pick a tank large enough for the number of sheets in question. for 1-4 sheets (my most usual case) I use a 1/2 gal rubber tank. For more than that, something like a 1 gal Tupperware tub of appropriate shape/size is the better choice.

Bear in mind that with semistand, there is only the initial 2 min agitation and one other at midpoint, so there is not a lot of film motion during the development cycle. That said, I HAVE had to learn to be careful when using these clips after a number of unfortunate instances of scratching.

More to the point, with Pyrocat-HD at least, these are the only clips that reliably avoided bromide drag. The frame style hangers were a disaster. I am looking forward to mixing some Pcat without KBr to see if that is more forgiving.

[Michael R]

Here's one of mine. No laughing!221862

[tundra]

Perhaps I will try those clips top and bottom with weights

I run gas burst


Ideally, if I can get one of the Pyrocat variants without KBr to work to suit, I can hopefully go back to standard hangar frames. These protect the film from scratching and abrasion better than anything else and are much easier to work with than the pinch hangers. We'll see.

[tundra]

Perhaps I will try those clips top and bottom with weights

I run gas burst

OK so, to followup on this... Yesterday I mixed up a batch of Pyrocat-M and processed two sheets of exposed film using the Kodak frame hangers to suspend them in a 1/2 gal Kodak rubber tank.

There are still definitely development byproducts visible along the edge of the film that was at the bottom of the tank. IOW, even removing the KBr from the developer does not fully solve the low agitation development artifact problem.

It's worth noting that I Semistand developed this for an hour with an initial 2min of agitation and one midpoint agitation. I suspect that had I done EMA, this would not have been an issue.

I think the term "bromide drag" really refers to all byproducts of the development process not just those attributable to the KBr in solution.

I therefore will continue to use pinch/minimal contact support for all my low agitation development.

As an aside, it was hard to come up with a canonical formula from Pyrocat-M. Some formulae call for 25g of Metol/liter (!) and some just 2.5g/l. Sandy King's original article called for 10 parts Metol for every part of the Phenidone it is replacing, which would put it at 20g/l. I went with 2.5g/l and got solid negatives a full film speed with Agfapan APX 100 sheet film. I'd love to know why there is such variability in the formula though ....

[Michael R]

Bromide as a development restrainer/inhibitor is only one of several things that causes “drag” artifacts, and only one of several things that may or may not contribute to development non-uniformity (various forms) in general.

Also note that even concerning bromide ion specifically, it is released by the silver halide crystals in the film emulsion itself during development as silver bromide is reduced to metallic silver. So, even if the developer formula contains no bromide, bromide will build up as development proceeds (unless of course the emulsion contained no silver bromide, which is never the case with film).


OK so, to followup on this... Yesterday I mixed up a batch of Pyrocat-M and processed two sheets of exposed film using the Kodak frame hangers to suspend them in a 1/2 gal Kodak rubber tank.

There are still definitely development byproducts visible along the edge of the film that was at the bottom of the tank. IOW, even removing the KBr from the developer does not fully solve the low agitation development artifact problem.

It's worth noting that I Semistand developed this for an hour with an initial 2min of agitation and one midpoint agitation. I suspect that had I done EMA, this would not have been an issue.

I think the term "bromide drag" really refers to all byproducts of the development process not just those attributable to the KBr in solution.

I therefore will continue to use pinch/minimal contact support for all my low agitation development.

As an aside, it was hard to come up with a canonical formula from Pyrocat-M. Some formulae call for 25g of Metol/liter (!) and some just 2.5g/l. Sandy King's original article called for 10 parts Metol for every part of the Phenidone it is replacing, which would put it at 20g/l. I went with 2.5g/l and got solid negatives a full film speed with Agfapan APX 100 sheet film. I'd love to know why there is such variability in the formula though ....

[tundra]

Bromide as a development restrainer/inhibitor is only one of several things that causes “drag” artifacts, and only one of several things that may or may not contribute to development non-uniformity (various forms) in general.

Also note that even concerning bromide ion specifically, it is released by the silver halide crystals in the film emulsion itself during development as silver bromide is reduced to metallic silver. So, even if the developer formula contains no bromide, bromide will build up as development proceeds (unless of course the emulsion contained no silver bromide, which is never the case with film).

Yes, this was my understanding as well. However, someone here suggested I try Pyrocat-M since it has no KBr to see if this reduced the propensity for drag. It did not, and I am unsurprised.

[LabRat]

If you ever developed a sheet of ortho film in a tray under safelight, you have seen a cloud of a fuzzy beard over heavily exposed areas... This "cloud" contains a combination of superaddivate components (that increase development) and bromide & by-products that inhibit development... Agitation moves these back into the solution to normally average out development...

Now, a developing tank is a confined space with support ribs to hold film, and film near other film etc... The "clouds" can easily drift over to other film areas where their "effect" can be easily seen (like skies, edges etc), so normal ideal agitation involves getting these "clouds" away from the films back into the solution... Too little, and the clouds remain near film, too much, and the surging of solutions can band them together (like a river) over one area and leave trails...

"Clouds" are more dense in less diluted developers due to more local development action, but less dense in more diluted solutions so in the confines of a tank, it will be easier to diffuse the thinner clouds more diluted...

Stand and semi-stand processing depend on less clouding and usually vertical placement while processing, where gravity assists the clouds to roll off areas and diffuse back into solution (hopefully)... As mentioned, film and supports can impede this process, so design of the tank is important... And method of agitation (not too little/not too much) is crucial for success... Follow the daylight tank's manufacturers directions carefully for a starting point...

As a general point, agitation methods that allow daylight tank to be inverted during agitation help a lot...

Steve K

[tundra]

If you ever developed a sheet of ortho film in a tray under safelight, you have seen a cloud of a fuzzy beard over heavily exposed areas... This "cloud" contains a combination of superaddivate components (that increase development) and bromide & by-products that inhibit development... Agitation moves these back into the solution to normally average out development...

Now, a developing tank is a confined space with support ribs to hold film, and film near other film etc... The "clouds" can easily drift over to other film areas where their "effect" can be easily seen (like skies, edges etc), so normal ideal agitation involves getting these "clouds" away from the films back into the solution... Too little, and the clouds remain near film, too much, and the surging of solutions can band them together (like a river) over one area and leave trails...

"Clouds" are more dense in less diluted developers due to more local development action, but less dense in more diluted solutions so in the confines of a tank, it will be easier to diffuse the thinner clouds more diluted...

Stand and semi-stand processing depend on less clouding and usually vertical placement while processing, where gravity assists the clouds to roll off areas and diffuse back into solution (hopefully)... As mentioned, film and supports can impede this process, so design of the tank is important... And method of agitation (not too little/not too much) is crucial for success... Follow the tank's manufacturers directions carefully for a starting point...

As a general point, agitation methods that allow tank to be inverted during agitation help a lot...

Steve K

Interesting. In my case, I am using pinch support at the top of the film and nothing elsewhere in 1/2 gal open rubber tanks. This seems to eliminate drag effects completely in all films (except one very old batch of 2x3 Plus-X). I am presoaking for 3 mins, initially agitating for 2 mins continuously, and then agitating for 15 sec at the 31 min mark for a total development time of 60mins at 20C.

[LabRat]

I use dip & dunk tanks myself, and it works well... I was taught agitation takes a knack where the lift is not too fast, hangers are tilted over 45° with a slight pause, and re-inserted not too fast to prevent surging...

Having a rack or something that holds hangers from going astray (or the right way to hold all together evenly) helps a lot!!!

Works well!!!

Steve K

[Duolab123]

Here's one of mine. No laughing!221862

What's going here. Please show us more.

[Michael R]

What's going here. Please show us more.

Hi Duolab123,

It’s a rotary development device I made (4x5). Hand cranked.

[Duolab123]

Hi Duolab123,

It’s a rotary development device I made (4x5). Hand cranked.

Very nice.

[Michael R]

Very nice.

Thanks. It was lots of work designing and testing but this final prototype works wonderfully. Perfect development uniformity, no artifacts/risks, easy to use. It only does up to 4 sheets at a time, but that’s perfect for me. It is one of a few different types of things I came up with on a deep dive into agitation/uniformity recently.

[Dave Ogle]

Combi tanks hold 6 sheets. not made anymore. Yankee made some years ago. both are day light 4x5 tanks. a table top film tent would be needed to load film into tanks.

[lenicolas]

I think Paterson Orbital deserves a mention here. It's basically an 8 x 10 tray with a daylight lid, funnel and a funky base (motorised or manual) that gives a swaying rotation, a bit like the last rounds of a spinning top. With dividers, you can set it up for four 4x5s, two 5x7s or a single 8x10. There are no holders so it's dead easy to load and you can use it for less common sizes with no extra trouble. 9x12 cm, 4x10", half plate...
Obviously there is a catch. The catch is that in my experience it works well either in constant agitation mode with very small amount of developer (close to how it was originally intended to be used for processing prints) or filled almost to the brim for stand development. With "normal" amounts of fluid you get problems – from negs lifting over the dividers to surge marks/uneven development to developer sloshing out of the corners if agitated too vigorously. This rules out quite a few developer/dilution options.
The Spearman Press SP-8x10 seems to be a new variation on the same basic idea (daylight tray with removable dividers) – but with a more generous volume and no "orbiting". Worth a look if you ever intend to mix formats.

All that said.. if you shoot a lot and prefer repeatable results to experimenting with development regimes, a Jobo Expert Drum is at least worth investigating.

I’ll add my vote for the orbital.
Even though I own an spp445 the orbital gets used exclusively.
I don’t bother with the base, I just lift a corner gently like you would when tray developing prints.
I fill it with just under 500cc of solution and get even development, whether I’m doing 4sheets of 45 or one sheet of 810.

I did a couple of mods to it : cut off the “finns” on the underside of the lid, and glued some plastic half beads to the bottom so the solution circulates under the sheets too and the anti aliasing layer gets washed off more efficiently.

[Tin Can]

I forgot I have an Orbital

With your success I will try it soon

Thanks for posting


I’ll add my vote for the orbital.
Even though I own an spp445 the orbital gets used exclusively.
I don’t bother with the base, I just lift a corner gently like you would when tray developing prints.
I fill it with just under 500cc of solution and get even development, whether I’m doing 4sheets of 45 or one sheet of 810.

I did a couple of mods to it : cut off the “finns” on the underside of the lid, and glued some plastic half beads to the bottom so the solution circulates under the sheets too and the anti aliasing layer gets washed off more efficiently.

[djphoto]

The "best" is probably the Jobo expert drum, but it's expensive.

222515

Stearman tank is popular and easy to load, but only does 4 sheets--good choice if you want to do stand development.

222516

I use the jobo 4x5 reel system, loading is a little finicky (there's an accessory that makes it easier). I have a larger tank and two reels for 12 sheets at a time.

222517

[bw-man]

B&W KING 4X5 Format Stainless Steel Film Developing Tank
Feature:
1,Full-immersion & Manual developing
2,Large capacity & Easy assemble and Disassemble
3,Rotational stirring & Convenient operation
4,Durable metal structure
Product Details:
1,BWG01 For 4x5 Inches specifications of film,It will hold up to 10 sheets at a time .
height: 170 mm
diameter: Ø110mm
capacity: 1050ml
weight: 1210 g

223043

[wayne77]

another high recommendation for the Stearman Press SP-445 from me. Only one caveat, when I received mine from BH it was missing the two film holders. Should have sent back but Tim sent me replacement holders, so high marks for the great customer care from Tim at Stearman Press! Being new to LF is so far my only experience developing (even though I had previously already owned a Yankee tank). Oh, one final benefit... only 475 ml of chemistry needed. A 120 roll takes 500 ml, so for low volume users (so far) like me, is a great invention!

[phdgent]

The "best" is probably the Jobo expert drum, but it's expensive.

222515

Stearman tank is popular and easy to load, but only does 4 sheets--good choice if you want to do stand development.

222516

I use the jobo 4x5 reel system, loading is a little finicky (there's an accessory that makes it easier). I have a larger tank and two reels for 12 sheets at a time.

222517

I have the JOBO 2500 system, for roll - aswel as for 4"x5" film. Both, the small for one sheet film reel and the one holding two reels.
As it works flawlessly, the main disadvantage, to my opinion, is the rather large volume of chemicals required to fill the tank (almost till the rim) as I operate it manually.
1300 cc for the small tank taking one reel for 6 sheets (as shown in the last picture in your post) is a bit generous I think...
But, on the other hand, as I mainly dilute the developer, Pyrocat-HD for instance, it is doable.

I still have my open tank system (I made it of black acryl glass) for holding the famous grey/blue coloured plastic K0DAK hangers. It's a set of 5 open 'containers', holding 8 hangers, to be used "au bain marie".
But as my Infra Red viewer broke a few years ago, I don't use that system any more...

[phdgent]

This is one of the DIY tanks I made out of black acryl glass (and the sheet holders I bought from KODAK a long time ago).
The frame in which the holders hang is meant for handling and agitating the holders all together, just lift that frame and you can dip all of them in the next tank/bath.
There ar 5 of them: water-, developer-, stop- and two fixing baths.

223451

[Tin Can]

My favorite 2X3 sheet film Daylight tank uses a waffle shape inside a roll film tank, max 12 sheets, I do 6

The film is never touched until fully dry

[Duolab123]

This is one of the DIY tanks I made out of black acryl glass (and the sheet holders I bought from KODAK a long time ago).
The frame in which the holders hang is meant for handling and agitating the holders all together, just lift that frame and you can dip all of them in the next tank/bath.
There ar 5 of them: water-, developer-, stop- and two fixing baths.

223451

I've never seen or heard of those hangers. They look neat. I love open tanks but I have a Jobo machine now. I use an Expert 3006 for 4x5 and 5x7. I do use an IR viewer for loading 4x5 on the Jobo reels occasionally, 2509n, IIRC . Those reels work slick, but I couldn't manage without the IR. Every method works.
Best Mike

[DLee]

So hate to be a noob here but I'm just getting back into 4X5 since college. I'm going to get a Stearman 4x5 tank as I don't have a darkroom. I'm just wondering, you guys talk about these fancy developers and such, is there any problem with simply using D-76 and Kodak Fixer and water?

Thanks,

d

[j.e.simmons]

DLee, nothing at all wrong with those. Many recommend them. In fact, it’s good to start with standard chemicals. Change them only when and if you need something different.

[DLee]

DLee, nothing at all wrong with those. Many recommend them. In fact, it’s good to start with standard chemicals. Change them only when and if you need something different.

Beautiful, Thanks John.