Stearman developing Issue

[andrewglennmiller]

I develop with the stearman 4x5 tank and have been having great fortune developing switching between coffee and wildflower developers but recently I tried a new developing solution with beer and had unsuccessful results. I'm assuming these are agitation errors perhaps? But what is strange, I developed 4 negatives at once and two of them appeared to have pattern of the stearman tray embedded on them while the other pair just seemed to have a few developing error splotches.

Is there any reasoning for this strange embedded?

I've attached two to compare, one of the pairs with just minor splotches, and the other the embedded stearman tray imprint on it.

Appreciate any insight? (Don't mind poor scans).

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1tUXmVuxgiOcSzTPPuxLK88v_RS0YvuAI?usp=sharing

[martiansea]

What kind of agitation did you use? I'm thinking it might be something to do with the viscosity of the developer and/or how it reacts to the film. Could be other factors from whatever else is in the developer, or even whatever kind of beer it is.

[Alan9940]

A latent impression of various holes in the SP-445 film holder is a fairly common reported issue. I had that issue, too, on occasion so I stopped using this tank. What seems to be really odd about this issue is that it seems to be film/developer combo dependent. If you like using this tank, my advice would be to stick with film/developer combos you know work.

[andrewglennmiller]

What kind of agitation did you use? I'm thinking it might be something to do with the viscosity of the developer and/or how it reacts to the film. Could be other factors from whatever else is in the developer, or even whatever kind of beer it is.

I was a bit worried about the agitation, one constant minute of agitation then 3 cycles every minute for 15 minute. We were a bit too casual missing some minute marks, and I our cucles were inconsistent, each time one of us agitating it, using different techniques im sure.

It was my first time using beer as my developer as well.

Also, first time using Frankenstein ASA 200.

So it is our first experiment with both, which is hard to pinpoint. We will be doing another development with our regular home developer (coffee) this week.

I am just curious as to why it took the shape of the stearman tray itself, is that odd or normal if developer / agitation is off?

[Michael Wellman]

That is frustrating. I would contact Tim at Stearman Press. He is very knowledgeable and helpful. I'm betting that he can tell you what is going on.

On another note, it's usually not a good idea to change more than one variable when you are trying different techniques because when things go wrong you don't know which variable is the culprit. Keep us posted.

[Ulophot]

It's quite hard to tell exactly what we're seeing. The blue suggests to me that this is the antihalation layer and that it didn't get washed our sufficiently. But the edge problems may indicate a foaming process that interfered with development there.

I can't speak to the unusual developers you are trying. The various issues with the holders have been addressed in a number of threads. I have found solutions for all, but I use plain old D-23.

[Michael R]

No matter how many revisions they make to the holders, it's simply a fundamental flaw with the entire concept that you can't get around. The best you can do is:

1. Remove the films from the holders before washing, and wash in open trays or some other device
2. After the wash, give the negatives a thorough soaking (at least 10 minutes) with intermittent agitation in HCA (or a fresh 2% sodium sulfite solution
3. Second wash

What this will often do is help to remove residual anti-halation dye (if there is any), from where the base side of the film was in prolonged contact with the holders. It will not remove the marring from wherever the film was in prolonged contact with the holder. The good news is that sometimes these marks don't print (people who scan negatives seem to have more problems). Marks on the base side of the film were also a thing with BTZS or other straight cylindrical tubes, although they were more irregular, and usually didn't print.

[Jim Noel]

At the high cost of film these days it is difficult for me to understand why people continue to use a somewhat questionable container, and unproven developers.

[Two23]

I've used the sp445 since it came out with ilford and foma films, HC110. I've had no issues with hundreds of sheets.



Kent in SD

[abruzzi]

I've occasional issues where a tiny bit of anti-hlation dye doesn't wash out so there is a purple splotch left on the film. Fortunately, just holding the sheet under running water and with my thumb gently massaging the back of the sheet (the non-emulsion side) for a couple seconds generally clears it away. And aside for that happening a couple times, I too have had no issues. Today I'm more likely to use the 810 tray, but when defeloping color I use the 445 since its easier to keep it in a water bath to maintain temperture.

Looking at the two samples both look like they didn't have enough developer since one end of the sheet is ragged. The second sheet--maybe the dye didn't clear, but it looks far worse than the splotches I've encountered. It almost looks like it was loaded backwards, i.e. emulsion in, which would limit the amount of developer that had access to parts of the film.

[Michael Wellman]

I've used both their 4x5 tanks and 8x10 trays and have run hundreds of sheets of film thru them without problems. I have used every possible way of developing film in the last 50 years and the Stearman system is the by the simplest and one the most eloquent system to use. If you have had problems I'd say the problem was with the user


At the high cost of film these days it is difficult for me to understand why people continue to use a somewhat questionable container, and unproven developers.

[esearing]

Version 1 holders do not exhibit any problems that people describe because they are solid (no holes) the ribs sometimes show marks when the film is wet but not seen once dry. With experimental developers, maybe try one sheet first before you ruin a whole batch. I would also recommend a presoak to remove anti-halation dye first.

Try the taco method in a patterson, jobo, 3reel stainless, or other similar round tank for experiments.

[Salmo22]

I have four of the Stearman 4x5 tanks and, like Michael, I've developed hundreds of negatives through all four tanks without any issues. In my opinion, it is a wonderful system.


I've used both their 4x5 tanks and 8x10 trays and have run hundreds of sheets of film thru them without problems. I have used every possible way of developing film in the last 50 years and the Stearman system is the by the simplest and one the most eloquent system to use. If you have had problems I'd say the problem was with the user

[martiansea]

I have four of the Stearman 4x5 tanks and, like Michael, I've developed hundreds of negatives through all four tanks without any issues. In my opinion, it is a wonderful system.

Same here. It's solid and beats the pants off the awful old Yankee tank I had used previously. My 810 tray is arriving this week and I'm looking forward to it!

[martiansea]

It almost looks like it was loaded backwards, i.e. emulsion in, which would limit the amount of developer that had access to parts of the film.
Now that you mention it, this is how it looks to me as well

[Jim Noel]

I've used both their 4x5 tanks and 8x10 trays and have run hundreds of sheets of film thru them without problems. I have used every possible way of developing film in the last 50 years and the Stearman system is the by the simplest and one the most eloquent system to use. If you have had problems I'd say the problem was with the user

I have only had a darkroom since about 1938 and have used many systems, but not the Stearman. I am perfectly satisfied with several of the systems I currently have available.

[andrewglennmiller]

I've occasional issues where a tiny bit of anti-hlation dye doesn't wash out so there is a purple splotch left on the film. Fortunately, just holding the sheet under running water and with my thumb gently massaging the back of the sheet (the non-emulsion side) for a couple seconds generally clears it away. And aside for that happening a couple times, I too have had no issues. Today I'm more likely to use the 810 tray, but when defeloping color I use the 445 since its easier to keep it in a water bath to maintain temperture.

Looking at the two samples both look like they didn't have enough developer since one end of the sheet is ragged. The second sheet--maybe the dye didn't clear, but it looks far worse than the splotches I've encountered. It almost looks like it was loaded backwards, i.e. emulsion in, which would limit the amount of developer that had access to parts of the film.

Sounds about right. That could be possible. I wasnt the loader. Thanks everyone for your answers, I have a better understanding of what variables could have gone wrong.

[Bill Poole]

I used a Stearman for a while, and would occasionally have a sheet that needed to be refixed and rewashed when a little spot did not clear because it was touching the plastic of the holder (Version 2). I switched over to MOD54 inserts for Paterson tanks, which had a learning curve but which I really love now that I am over that. I kept the Stearman for a while to use for batches when I only had four sheets, but am now 100 percent MOD54.

[JohnF]

I had no problems with 5x4 FP4+ in Ilford DD-X, but definite dye remnants on the non-emulsion side with 510 pyro. As Abruzzi states, it can be cleared by gently massage with thumb/fingers under running water

[chuckf]

I've tried using this tank over the last there years as I slowly got involved with LF. I started with the Harmann Paper Positives, but had the shadows of the holder on the paper.. but as I had other problems like pre-flashing, film speed and duuhhh ..reversed images. in that "I could've had a V8 moment, I moved to film. The film I used was ADOX CHS II and while some were semi ok, almost all my negatives had traces of shadows in the light ( sky) areas. I wasted most of Adox honing my loading skills and taking care etc, that these were not user induced. Stearman offered the Ver 4 holders, which are quite different. Now using Fomopan, then new holder etc have not made any improvement. I suspect I will have to move on. But I did want to try and resolve why some of us are having these problems. With Fomopan, roll films I usually pre-soak to get rid the anti-halation backing. I then rinse the film clear, thae begin development usually D76 1:1 , Stop with water circa 1:00 min, and then fix for five, sometimes ten minutes.
Since I've read a bit on Stearman site, saying don't pre-soak. I tried that . Another time I've kept agitation constant during the fix cycle with and without pre-soak. I really wanted this to work.. Love the design and economic chemical use. I'd like to hear from others.. what film/developed combos have worked. Not all anti-halatrion backings are colored? But color or not, is this the problem? The PH of the water? I have not conciously made a distilled water test as my (gallon) developer is now mixed with tap water. as is the 1 liter fixer. Film isn't cheap and will eventually try this later with ony distilled weter. Not yet ready to waste another four frames, buy new film and different chemicals.

[Tin Can]

Welcome to the Forum

Each of us must find our way, as we all have variables

I use DISTILLED water for all developers, as water stop and with TF5


I've tried using this tank over the last there years as I slowly got involved with LF. I started with the Harmann Paper Positives, but had the shadows of the holder on the paper.. but as I had other problems like pre-flashing, film speed and duuhhh ..reversed images. in that "I could've had a V8 moment, I moved to film. The film I used was ADOX CHS II and while some were semi ok, almost all my negatives had traces of shadows in the light ( sky) areas. I wasted most of Adox honing my loading skills and taking care etc, that these were not user induced. Stearman offered the Ver 4 holders, which are quite different. Now using Fomopan, then new holder etc have not made any improvement. I suspect I will have to move on. But I did want to try and resolve why some of us are having these problems. With Fomopan, roll films I usually pre-soak to get rid the anti-halation backing. I then rinse the film clear, thae begin development usually D76 1:1 , Stop with water circa 1:00 min, and then fix for five, sometimes ten minutes.
Since I've read a bit on Stearman site, saying don't pre-soak. I tried that . Another time I've kept agitation constant during the fix cycle with and without pre-soak. I really wanted this to work.. Love the design and economic chemical use. I'd like to hear from others.. what film/developed combos have worked. Not all anti-halatrion backings are colored? But color or not, is this the problem? The PH of the water? I have not conciously made a distilled water test as my (gallon) developer is now mixed with tap water. as is the 1 liter fixer. Film isn't cheap and will eventually try this later with ony distilled weter. Not yet ready to waste another four frames, buy new film and different chemicals.

[Michael R]

Chuck,

Equipment/process design is a balancing act (you can't have everything). In the case of sheet film development there are various things to consider, and different makers and photographers prioritize them differently. The Stearman tank design prioritizes small size and low solution volumes (and obviously daylight processing) over processing quality and tolerance/flexibility. This means among other things outcomes will be more sensitive to the various variables involved - everything from film type to chemicals to agitation technique.

One design choice was to have the holders make contact with the base side of the film within the image area. As a consequence, no matter how many times they change those contact points, there will always be a chance you get some base marring (not reversible post-process, but may not show up in prints) and/or retained anti-halation dyes (can [usually/mostly] be removed post-process). This can depend on the film, agitation and occasionally the chemicals used (not your tap water pH specifically which is irrelevant).

Michael


I've tried using this tank over the last there years as I slowly got involved with LF. I started with the Harmann Paper Positives, but had the shadows of the holder on the paper.. but as I had other problems like pre-flashing, film speed and duuhhh ..reversed images. in that "I could've had a V8 moment, I moved to film. The film I used was ADOX CHS II and while some were semi ok, almost all my negatives had traces of shadows in the light ( sky) areas. I wasted most of Adox honing my loading skills and taking care etc, that these were not user induced. Stearman offered the Ver 4 holders, which are quite different. Now using Fomopan, then new holder etc have not made any improvement. I suspect I will have to move on. But I did want to try and resolve why some of us are having these problems. With Fomopan, roll films I usually pre-soak to get rid the anti-halation backing. I then rinse the film clear, thae begin development usually D76 1:1 , Stop with water circa 1:00 min, and then fix for five, sometimes ten minutes.
Since I've read a bit on Stearman site, saying don't pre-soak. I tried that . Another time I've kept agitation constant during the fix cycle with and without pre-soak. I really wanted this to work.. Love the design and economic chemical use. I'd like to hear from others.. what film/developed combos have worked. Not all anti-halatrion backings are colored? But color or not, is this the problem? The PH of the water? I have not conciously made a distilled water test as my (gallon) developer is now mixed with tap water. as is the 1 liter fixer. Film isn't cheap and will eventually try this later with ony distilled weter. Not yet ready to waste another four frames, buy new film and different chemicals.

[GuillaumeZuili]

I have four of the Stearman 4x5 tanks and, like Michael, I've developed hundreds of negatives through all four tanks without any issues. In my opinion, it is a wonderful system.


Same here also.
I use 2 tanks together in order to do 8 sheets.
Dk50 or Rodinal with different film, always worked.
First time got issue with some dye. Then strong agitation in fix solved the problem.
Since then it has been many hundreds of sheets without any issue.
G.

[JohnF]

Just looked back at some 5x4 negs developed in a Stearman tank. Those developed in Ilford DD-X are perfect while those in 510 pyro all show some ‘streaking’ on the non-emulsion side adjacent to the verticals in the film holders

[tim48v]

Sorry for being late to the party, not sure how we missed this thread. Anyway, regarding the second image: almost certainly loaded backwards!

[tim48v]

Regarding anti-halation dye, we finally found the main issue: blotches of doom solved (https://shop.stearmanpress.com/pages/blotches-of-doom-solved)

[tim48v]

Chuckf,
We'd like to see some of you images. Can you email a scan to timothy@stearmanpress.com?
Tim



I've tried using this tank over the last there years as I slowly got involved with LF. I started with the Harmann Paper Positives, but had the shadows of the holder on the paper.. but as I had other problems like pre-flashing, film speed and duuhhh ..reversed images. in that "I could've had a V8 moment, I moved to film. The film I used was ADOX CHS II and while some were semi ok, almost all my negatives had traces of shadows in the light ( sky) areas. I wasted most of Adox honing my loading skills and taking care etc, that these were not user induced. Stearman offered the Ver 4 holders, which are quite different. Now using Fomopan, then new holder etc have not made any improvement. I suspect I will have to move on. But I did want to try and resolve why some of us are having these problems. With Fomopan, roll films I usually pre-soak to get rid the anti-halation backing. I then rinse the film clear, thae begin development usually D76 1:1 , Stop with water circa 1:00 min, and then fix for five, sometimes ten minutes.
Since I've read a bit on Stearman site, saying don't pre-soak. I tried that . Another time I've kept agitation constant during the fix cycle with and without pre-soak. I really wanted this to work.. Love the design and economic chemical use. I'd like to hear from others.. what film/developed combos have worked. Not all anti-halatrion backings are colored? But color or not, is this the problem? The PH of the water? I have not conciously made a distilled water test as my (gallon) developer is now mixed with tap water. as is the 1 liter fixer. Film isn't cheap and will eventually try this later with ony distilled weter. Not yet ready to waste another four frames, buy new film and different chemicals.

[newtorf]

It's relatively easy to reproduce the strip issue with Kodak B&W films like TMAX, if shooting a scene with large plain background like sky. The non-emulsion side can have a trace of purple strips after fixing and washing in the tank, due to the close contact between the film and the bracket. That's why nowadays I take the films out of the tank after fixing and wash them in a bucket. This solves the problem, although it would be nice that the bracket can be re-designed to avoid this problem.


Chuckf,
We'd like to see some of you images. Can you email a scan to timothy@stearmanpress.com?
Tim

[andrewglennmiller]

Happy to follow up on original post that the error in the film was a most likely the result of putting the film in backwards. Today I decided to shoot with this film again and the results turned out perfectly with the same steps as previous. Seeing how the two films sit real snug in the dual sleeves, it only makes sense too.