First 4x5 B&W films processed...

[ic-racer]

I have been processing B&W roll film since 1973, but have never processed 4x5. I have been in bidding wars to get a Jobo Expert drum, but have not won one yet, so I thought I would try tray development to check out my new 4x5 camera.

I just filled some 8x10 trays with the appropriate chemicals and turned off the lights then used a gloved hand to run the film from tray to tray. My impression as I was doing this was that the film was getting marred each time my glove touched the emulsion (it's impossible to handle it outside the image area). I processed emulsion side up to keep the emulsion from touching the tray bottom. I agitated the film continuously by gently moving it up and down in the tray. I figured these negatives were going to be trash from all the manipulation.

Turns out they look great. The sheet film is more robust than I had imagined. I am really pleased with the results.

For drying, I prevously did a search on film clips for 4x5 but am still undecided. I got some clothes drying clips from my wife but they don't touch at the ends and won't clip the film. Also, it seemed like they would need to grab on the image area to stay in place anyway. I wound up using some surgical hemostats that could just grab the edge of the film, outside the image area.

BTW I was using TMX 4x5 in Tmax (nonRS) developer 1:4. I just guessed at times. 4 min for the first one seemed a little thin but still printable. I incresed it to 5 min for the following sheets and they looked very printable.

[cowanw]

surgical heamostats are a freaking brilliant idea!
Bill

[Peter Lewin]

Take a dry negative and practice hanging it up with a wooden clothes pin. You will see that while the very ends don't touch, if you hang the negative with just the corner near the notches inbetween the ends at the point where they do touch (clumsy grammar - just experiment to see how little of the neg needs to be in contact with the clothes pin) and you will see that the image area is unaffected. I've been hanging my 4x5s up this way for 20 years or so, no problems, and eight or more clothes pins cost way less than eight hemostats! (By the way, you may also get some posts about tray developing emulsion side down, lets just say the world is split between the "ups" and the "downs" - use whichever works for you - I happen to be a "down.")

[Ron Marshall]

I built a dust free drying box, out of 1" x 1" wood and plastic sheet. The hangers are tiny black spring-steel paperclips which tenaciously grab a tiny bit of the sheet edge .

[Donald Qualls]

For a single sheet at a time, no question, I'd process emulsion up. When I do a stack, however, I now process emulsion down, which has pretty much eliminated scratches in the emulsion from the corner of the sheet above (and the trays I have, with a fairly fine textured bottom, don't seem to damage the emulsion at all). Still working on better ways to process multiple sheets, though; I like the results from doing them in tubes, except for the dye left in the base side from contact with the inside of the tube (soaking in 2% sodium sulfite solution after fixing removes the dye, fortunately). I need to find a better way to handle multiple sheets in the tubes; maybe time to slot some of the ABS sheet I have around to make a multi-sheet carrier that fits in my quart-size stainless tank...

For hanging film, sheet or roll, I use magnet-backed spring clips from Office Depot; they can grip in the portion of the sheet masked by the film holder, and then hang from the bowl of a torchiere lamp, up to a dozen at a time.

[ic-racer]

Take a dry negative and practice hanging it up with a wooden clothes pin. You will see that while the very ends don't touch, if you hang the negative with just the corner near the notches inbetween the ends at the point where they do touch (clumsy grammar - just experiment to see how little of the neg needs to be in contact with the clothes pin) and you will see that the image area is unaffected. I've been hanging my 4x5s up this way for 20 years or so, no problems, and eight or more clothes pins cost way less than eight hemostats! (By the way, you may also get some posts about tray developing emulsion side down, lets just say the world is split between the "ups" and the "downs" - use whichever works for you - I happen to be a "down.")

Actually on the plastic clothes clips my wife had, the whole tip, in front of the notch, does not meet! They won't hold anything by the part in front of the notch, there is a 3mm gap. I looked at the whole box of them and they were all made this way.:confused:

[Peter Lewin]

Actually on the plastic clothes clips my wife had, the whole tip, in front of the notch, does not meet! They won't hold anything by the part in front of the notch, there is a 3mm gap. I looked at the whole box of them and they were all made this way.:confused:
I've only used wooden clothes pins - seems that the combination of wood and wet negs are nice and "grippy" - plastic scares me, seems too slick to hold.

[Louie Powell]

I saw some clips at Central Camera in Chicago a few weeks ago that looked just like alligator clips. If surgical hemostats work (and I would expect they would), the alligator clips should also. Haven't priced them recently, but Radio Shack should have a good selection.

[JW Dewdney]

I've dried THOUSANDS of sheets using common bulldog clips from office supply stores. My 'ghetto' version of this is putting about 20-25 on a wire clothes hanger - and hanging that from a showerhead to dry.

[Scott Kathe]

You can use regular clothespins if you do what Ansel Adams did (supposedly). Take a standard clothespin apart, put the flat sides against each other. Put the spring part in the square cutouts. The other ends go where the spring used to go, the grabbing action is now at the opposite end of the clothespin. These work great!

Scott

[ic-racer]

Thanks for all the drying clip hints.

Just some follow up on the surgical hemostats: The serrated ends do leave a mark on the film edge. Probably more pronounced than wood clothes clips, because the hemostats exert a lot of force over a small area.

[eric black]

If you are ultimately planning on drum scanning the image you might need to take a roller to smooth out the hemostat marks otherwise I cant see how they would be a bad thing- currently I already deal with the holes in the edge of the film that quickloads inherently have. I just use an old wooden j-roller to flatten them out a bit prior to mounting to keep air gaps between the film and mylar in the final oil-mounted assembly to a minimum.

[ic-racer]

If you are ultimately planning on drum scanning the image you might need to take a roller to smooth out the hemostat marks otherwise I cant see how they would be a bad thing- currently I already deal with the holes in the edge of the film that quickloads inherently have. I just use an old wooden j-roller to flatten them out a bit prior to mounting to keep air gaps between the film and mylar in the final oil-mounted assembly to a minimum.

Standard enlargements only. I'm not shure what a drum scanner is...:D

[ic-racer]

Well, I have already gone through a box of 50 sheets of TMX 4x5, but it will take me forever to tray develop them all. Since I am using gloves, it is difficult to shuffle them, so I have been doing the sheets one-at-a-time. Can't seem to win a Jobo Expert drum on e-bay, they are going for $200USD and up.

[Peter Lewin]

Since I am using gloves, it is difficult to shuffle them, so I have been doing the sheets one-at-a-time.
Are you using thin gloves? I tray develop in PMK, which requires gloves, and have been using the thin blue nitrile gloves you can find at Home Depot or most hardware stores. They're thin enough to easily feel the film notches (I need to feel them to orient the film, to make sure it is face down, my preferred orientation) and don't get in the way of shuffling (I'm not sure if the little extra "stickiness" of rubber doesn't even help!). Like many who have tray developed for a while, I'm quite comfortable doing 6-8 sheets at a time, and very rarely have scratches (I probably just jinxed my next batch...). One other suggestion, take a look for Ken Lee's site, it prompted me to switch from trays to rectangular plastic food containers, which are deeper than trays but have less surface area. The added depth is an additional aid in avoiding scratches, and there is less room for the film to move around. You are off to a good start, you just need some practice to become comfortable with the process!

[davidb]

why not use tanks?

[Pat Kearns]

Try using the Unicolor/Beseler drums with a motor base. The 8x10 drum will hold 4 sheets and once loaded the processing is done in daylight. There is an article on the LF Homepage describing their usage.

[ic-racer]

Try using the Unicolor/Beseler drums with a motor base. The 8x10 drum will hold 4 sheets and once loaded the processing is done in daylight. There is an article on the LF Homepage describing their usage.

I actually sold my uniroller and drums when I got the Jobo CPE. But you have given me an idea. I wonder why I can't stuff some 4x5 negatives into the 1500 series tanks that I use for rollfilm and use them like print drums.

I think I'll try one more bid on e-bay for an expert drum, but if it goes over $200USD I'm just going to buy a new one.

[Michael Graves]

I think I'll try one more bid on e-bay for an expert drum, but if it goes over $200USD I'm just going to buy a new one.

Why the expert if you're just doing 4x5? The Jobo 2523 and a 4x5 reel does great work. Stick to it as a rotary drum though. For Schlitz and gins, I tried inversion. It works fine, and maybe it's just my imagination, but it seems that there are faint agitation marks at the very edges. Nothing seriously bad that can't be cropped, but with rotary processing the negatives are clean and very evenly processed. Brand new, the setup will run around a hundred bucks. You ought to be able to pick up one on Ebay for $60 or less if you look.

[ic-racer]

Just for kicks I put two 1500 drums together (long enough to hold five 35mm rolls) with just the center column and no reels. This had enough room for two 4x5 films. They seemed to stay in place for the whole processing cycle and came out fine.

[David Schaller]

I use just the Jobo tank for 6 sheets of 4x5 and hand inversion. Works great.

[ic-racer]

I ran about eight 4x5 sheet films through the Jobo CPP2 in the 1500 drums and the results are very good. The 'standard' rotational chemistry volume is much more than what is needed for just two sheets of film, but I just collected the effluent after each step and then I was all set for the next run.

[ic-racer]

Did about 6 more films in the 1500 series drums but got 'burned' with two films that touched. This left a piece of emulsion on the back of one film and an undeveloped area on the other film.

On second look at the B&H site a brand new 3010 JOBO expert drum is only $275. This compares favorably with the high prices these things getting on ebay ($250!).

For film clips I decided on the JOBO clips the pierce the film with a small pin. However, after seeing that they are $6.50 APIECE! I wound up getting 24 hemostats on e-bay for $1.00 apiece including shipping. I think the hemostats will help get the films out of the JOBO drum and they do an excellent job of holding the film right by the edge. I already have a bunch of hemostats but I use them in the workshop, so now I have 24 that can stay in the darkroom.

[Donald Qualls]

Wow, that price for hemostats is hardly more than I've been paying for magnet-backed binder clips -- which aren't even stainless, and a few of mine are starting to make rust marks where they touch the film (I should be able to remove the rust and then lacquer over the jaws to prevent recurrence, but it's annoying to have to do so). OTOH, I don't have any place I could hang hemostats (though I suppose I could get a bunch of magnet-backed cup hooks).

[Dirk Rösler]

My drying hanger...

[Donald Qualls]

Nice. Where would I get one (or two or three) of those? I bet they'd work well for hanging RC prints, too...

[ic-racer]

Jobo tank came and I think I was a little cavalier with my first few processing runs. I had at least two films that were put in the chambers backward. On another occasion I found 4 films in one chamber (instead of 2). Either they were stuck together when I put them in or I 'double loaded' the chamber.

After being more careful, the last few runs have been fine.

I wound up washing the film right on the Jobo processor. Right now I am doing it like this, all on the Processor:

Fix: 5min
Wash: 1 min
Permawash: 1 min
Wash: 1 min (500cc)
Wash: 1 min (500cc)
Wash: 2 min (500cc)
Wash: 2 min (500cc)

This gives me 6 min wash time with 4 changes of water.

My new hemostats came in the mail and they work fine. The fine tips allow me to pick the films out of the drum without any problem. The hemostat makes a nice 'handle' and I can then easily dip the film in a tray of photoflo and hang for drying.

After drying, the hemostat handle works great allowing me to slide the films into the archival plastic pages without ever touching the film.

[Donald Qualls]

The only flaws I see in your wash process are a) you don't need Permawash for film -- its function is to release hypo from paper fiber, and film doesn't need that (OTOH, it does no harm; if it makes you feel good, go ahead ), and b) I'd be concerned about adequate washing of the back sides of the films (when I process in tubes, I have to either fix in a tray or rinse in sulfite solution and wash out of the tubes to avoid dye residue on the base side), but if you don't see leftover antihalation dye in European films like Foma or Efke it's probably fine (no dye with those films would indicate adequate liquid access between film and drum chamber). I would suggest extending the fourth wash to four minutes; might not be necessary, but it'd do no harm and add only two minutes to your total process.

[ic-racer]

Am I missing something, I have used permawash for 20+ years for film.

I'm also not totally comfortable with the in-tank wash because of concerns about the back of the film, but I am trying it this way to see what happens. According to what I read about the expert drums they are supposed to be designed to allow fluid behind the film and I don't see any signs of un-even removal of the pink.

However, the films that were placed in the tank backwards had splotches of underdevelopment. So, although fluid may be able to get behind the film, not enough gets back there.

I'll have to search, but I remember a thread, either here or on APUG, about washing sheet film. Someone posted that they use the Gravity Works washer which seemed nice.

[Donald Qualls]

Whether you have dye problems with the base in contact with a surface is also dependent on film brand; Kodak and I think Fuji have the antihalation dye in a sub-layer on the emulsion side, apparently (it never, ever stays on the film), while Forte and Foma, at least, and I believe Efke as well, have it on the base side in the anti-curl coating.

I get my information on what does and doesn't need hypo clearing from David Vestal's "Art of Black and White Printing", from the mid-1980s, which included test data that proved to my satisfaction that hypo washes out of gelatin very quickly (the Ilford wash method for film is completely valid even with Kodak/Ilford/Fuji style superhard emulsion, acid fixer, and in complete absence of a sulfite afterbath), and it's only the paper fiber of fiber based prints that's a major concern. This information wasn't widely known 20+ years ago, however, and the methods that were standard in the 1980s were based on the knowledge that residual hypo was bad, but without complete information on why prints take so long to wash completely (and in absence of testing of film washing, for the most part -- no idea why it took 50+ years for someone to make those tests, from the time it was determined that residual fixer was the cause of most fading and staining to the time it was determined that gelatin washed clean very quickly).

I haven't gone through Vestal's full process to verify my own archival process for fiber prints (so far, I've done very few fiber prints, hopefully I'll be able to change that soon), but I'm confident in his data that suggests that paper, not gelatin, is what's hard to wash.

[fhovie]

Amen on the Jobo for hand inversion processing - with an extension, I can do 18 sheets at once (carefully) - one thing I might add, .... well .... 2 things - Fuji Hunt makes a post wash called "BanStatic" it does something to the film to make it repel dust. It really works. And .... I read somewhere that in some materials, it might have been FB paper, a tiny amount of thiosulfate actually make the material less likely to oxidize. The article went on to say that the real enemy was acid. I do not know - I do not have the kind of lab to know if you can get an extra few hundred years out of a FB print but it did make me wonder - looking at all the civil war photos that were washed in a stream and how good they look. Maybe the 80/20 rule here on washing. What I do is use Ammonium Thiosulfate instead of Sodium Thiousulfate for my fixer - It has a PH of 8. After 4 minutes (or so) of this, I put them in a bath of water with a little sodium sulfite in it. It also has a ph of 8. Then water for 30 -60 minutes. I test my fixer regularly by seeing how quick it will clear a strip of film and I figure my prints (and negs) will certainly break the 200 year mark (if toned) - good enough

[Donald Qualls]

There was speculation at the time of Vestal's book, since confirmed, that the preservative action sometimes attributed to residual hypo in prints is due to sulfuring of the thiosulfate -- it can convert through several steps to elemental sulfur which can then form a sulfide of the image silver, equivalent to sulfide toning (a recognized archival treatment method). The problem is that thiosulfate can also change the other direction, depending on conditions, and wind up as sulfate (or sulfuric acid), and the sulfate of silver is white -- not much good for forming an image. This is the (or at least "a") source of bleaching in an incompletely washed print. Worse, residual thiosulfate in the paper may also have bound silver ions, which can "print out" over time and result in brownish to gray staining of both the emulsion surface and the paper base.

Best is to remove all the thiosulfate from a print, and then tone it with sulfide, selenium, gold, or platinum/palladium, rendering the image much more inert than metallic silver. Toning protects against environmental sulfur (which can stain a print yellow to brown -- pure silver sulfide is a dull yellow) as well as other pollutants that can bleach or stain, by coating the image silver grains with a less reactive material.

[J_Tardiff]

Nice. Where would I get one (or two or three) of those? I bet they'd work well for hanging RC prints, too...

I use a similar device --- they're "normally" used for hanging lingerie :) .

JT

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, I'll check the "housewares" section at K-Mart, then... ;)

[ic-racer]

Whether you have dye problems with the base in contact with a surface is also dependent on film brand; Kodak and I think Fuji have the antihalation dye in a sub-layer on the emulsion side, apparently (it never, ever stays on the film), while Forte and Foma, at least, and I believe Efke as well, have it on the base side in the anti-curl coating.

I get my information on what does and doesn't need hypo clearing from David Vestal's "Art of Black and White Printing", from the mid-1980s, which included test data that proved to my satisfaction that hypo washes out of gelatin very quickly (the Ilford wash method for film is completely valid even with Kodak/Ilford/Fuji style superhard emulsion, acid fixer, and in complete absence of a sulfite afterbath), and it's only the paper fiber of fiber based prints that's a major concern. This information wasn't widely known 20+ years ago, however, and the methods that were standard in the 1980s were based on the knowledge that residual hypo was bad, but without complete information on why prints take so long to wash completely (and in absence of testing of film washing, for the most part -- no idea why it took 50+ years for someone to make those tests, from the time it was determined that residual fixer was the cause of most fading and staining to the time it was determined that gelatin washed clean very quickly).

I haven't gone through Vestal's full process to verify my own archival process for fiber prints (so far, I've done very few fiber prints, hopefully I'll be able to change that soon), but I'm confident in his data that suggests that paper, not gelatin, is what's hard to wash.

Thanks for the info on the film base. Also, I did some new [to me] research on this washing issue and from what I can tell the water alone is probably all that is needed, as you suggested.