New idea?? Inexpensive daylight Softube processing of sheet film

[Ed Brock]

I am fairly new to LF photography (5 yrs), but coming from a design background I sometimes look at things from a fresh point of view. I have tried many ways to process sheet film – always with a fatality that would spur me to move on to another method. I’ve used the method I will call Softube processing for almost 2 years now without so much as a single mishap – no scratches, surge marks, uneven development or any other defects. Here it is in a nutshell: I use plastic window screen, available at any local Lowes / Home Depot, cut with scissors into sheets slightly larger in one dimension than the sheet film and sewn into “tubes” on my wife’s sewing machine. Film is rolled up and inserted into the tube “emulsion in”. When the film is released, it pops open to form a sturdy but soft tube. The ends of the film are held apart ¼ “or so by the outward force and never touch. They can then be packed and squished into most any daylight roll-film processing tank In my case, 8-10 sheets of 5x7 fit nicely around the center fill column of a 15” deep Patterson roll film tank. Here are some of the advantages. Cost is nil, less than a cup of Starbucks. I made enough softubes in a few minutes to last a lifetime. The screen goes through a sewing machine just like fabric. The plastic screen does not absorb chemicals. The mesh allows solutions to flow freely to both sides of the film. I can use the most vigorous inversion agitation, then the film sits absolutely still (unlike tray and any type of rotational processing) until the next agitation cycle. With daylight processing I can check small temp changes with a probe thermometer and adjust time to compensate. I can also answer the phone or carry on a conversation. A couple of notes: I found that I needed to invent an “inserter tool” to load the film into softubes quickly and keep the sharp corners of the film from hanging up on the screen mesh. I use an empty, straight-sided pill bottle. Film is rolled up and one end is placed into the “inserter”. It is then pushed into the tube and the inserter pulled off. The time it just took to read that sentence is how long it takes for the loading process. I have two sizes of softubes for my 5x7. One for film rolled on the 5” axis and another for film rolled on the 7” axis. I stack the softubes 3 or 4 to a layer in different capacity 120 roll film tanks and keep them under the solutions with an empty 120 reel on top. I know this would work for 4x5 even better than for 5x7. I can’t speak for sizes larger than 5x7 as obviously the outward force exerted by film on its softube would decrease as the size of the film increases.

[Greg Lockrey]

Many moons ago I had a paper processor that had these baskets where you put two sheets of 8x10 back to back in each slot. Each basket could handle 50 sheets and two baskets could be used together. When I first got the processor and seen these screens my first thought was that they would mark the paper of you couldn't rinse them enough. They worked great! I had four baskets so that I could do a run, then have two in front of a fan to dry off after the rinse. Never ran out of baskets even if I had to process all day. I wish I could remember the name of this processor, it was made in Texas. It used Kodak Flexicolor chemistry for color and it had temperature control on the first stage that set the limit for all three stages. There was a rinse that was free flowing from the fawcet. You agitated by hand by lifting the baskets up and down. I used standard 8x10 film holder if I wanted to do a couple of sheets at at time. A photographer friend of mine and I would set up at trade shows, he would shoot and I would process and his assistant would sell the the print specs to the participants. Was a down and dirty way to make a few bucks.

[Maretzo]

Ed,

Would it be possible to post some pictures of the setup?
That would be great.

THanks, Maretzo

[Joakim Ahnfelt]

Yes, some pictures please.

[Clueless Winddancing]

Congradulations for you perserveriance and success. ULF might be processed in a Jobo in a similar way on a Jobo ATL. Of course, I hold the patent, and my attourney will be contacting yours soon. :) NOT

[bob carnie]

A Kodak K16 processor was in each college darkroom that I attended in the early 70's. basically it was a screen mesh that lay in tempered water and the print was exposed , placed emulsion up on the screen, then the print was laid onto a roller system.It could handle up to 16x20 prints. Chemicals were added/dumped in a tray as desired as well as washwater, it worked brilliantly.

The basket system *and I forget the name as well* was for third year students, we would load up the baskets and then dump them into the chemical and manualy move them from one trough to another ,.nitrogen burst would provided the agitation and the chemicals were replenished after each run..

Once again this system worked very well, the year after I left college they brought in a 20 inch hope processor for auto dry to dry.

The sock idea is great and I am sure works very well.

[Brian Ellis]

"I have tried many ways to process sheet film – always with a fatality that would spur me to move on to another method. "

Did you ever use the BTZS tubes? I've been using them for about 12 years, I don't think I've ever had a scratch, uneven development problem, or any other problem. Plus they use all of 2 ounces of chemistry per sheet/tube (1 ounce if you mix D76 1-1 as I do).

[rippo]

Ed, that's a great idea! It's sort of like an improved taco method. Kind of. without the corner scratching that can result.

So, how do you sew the sleeves? are they pinched together or do they overlap? i would think the pinched-together method would protect the film better.

[Ron Marshall]

Very interesting Ed; great innovation! I'll give it a try for semi-stand. Thanks for posting.

[Jrewt]

BTZS doesn't make tubes that do 8x10 do they? My jobo is about to die, and since I won't be able to replace it I have to start thinking about alternatives!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

BTZS doesn't make tubes that do 8x10 do they? My jobo is about to die, and since I won't be able to replace it I have to start thinking about alternatives!

Use the containers that are used for storing welding leads, they are about $14 each and work just as well. If the tubes are too transparent just spray them with black paint and they will work.

AWB sells them, but he wants something like $70 for something that you can get for less than $20.

as to the sock idea, have you thought about using paint strainers? They come sewn already, all you have to do is fold the film.

[Ed Brock]

Yes, I did try the BTZS system of sorts. I made my own tubes from 2" opaque PVC for 5x7 complete with light traps for daylight processing. I had a fatality when I scratched a processed sheet trying to pry a corner loose from the inside of a tube. After using the softubes I could never go back to the roller tube type of processing. Why? I can now process 8-10 sheets with the same ease of processing 1 sheet. I never really knew what was happening re: solution temperature inside the tubes. I didn"t like the increased contrast of continuous agitation. Keeping multiple tubes spinning, with staggered finish times for dev and fix, I felt like a small cog in a big machine. And once I finished, there were zillions of small pieces to wash and dry. If I get perfect results with virtually no cost or effort, it is easy to get spoiled.

In answer to how the softubes are sewn: The screen is simply folded over, pinched together and sewn on one edge. I reversed the sewing machine and went over each seam a few times. Each tube has its seam tab of variable width, hanging out on the outside. Once I got the dimensions right on one of them, I just cut the rest on a paper cutter insuring each was square-cut. I have lots of them as they are quick and easy to make. If I have more than 8-10 sheets to process, I just hand dry my tank in a minute and am instantly ready to process again using another set of the softubes.

[Sheldon N]

Very interesting!

What technique do you use to remove the film from the screen tubes? I would guess there could be some vulnerability to scratching during that process...

[Brian Ellis]

BTZS doesn't make tubes that do 8x10 do they? My jobo is about to die, and since I won't be able to replace it I have to start thinking about alternatives!

At one time 8x10 BTZS tubes were made and you can occasionally find them used (I sold mine a few years ago) but they aren't currently being made (unless things have changed in the last few years, I haven't looked lately).

[Kirk Gittings]

I used to thisnk my development methods did not scratch, tray for 20 years, BTZS for the last 10. But once I started scanning I learned the truth. They may not effect an enlarged image but they were there. I would be amazed if there were not some minor scratching at least from the soft-taco method. To find out scan an unexposed sheet the film, apply a fairly steep curve and some sharpening and then look at it carefully at 100%. Look for scratches in the direction of the insertion or withdrawal. Dry scans enhance flaws but also give you the tools to correct them handily in PS. The scratches may not affect the image, but I would be surprised if there were none.
The best I have ever seen (least number of scratches on a scan, were from Praus who uses a JOBO I believe).

[ericantonio]

Ed,
I'm having a hard time picturing this.
I just got some of the welding tubes used from a fellow photographer for doing 8x10s. But I've always used the tray methods for 8x10.

[Ed Brock]

An interesting question regarding scratches. I don't do any scanning of my images. They are almost all B&W and I enlarge to my max of 33" in length quite often. No hint of scratches although there are the usual tiny white spots from dust. The 5x7 film slides gently out of the softubes (I usually do this part this under water) so if any scratching is occurring, it would be on the back side as the emulsion never touches anything in this process. It would seem to me that film would be much more vulnerable to scratching while loading into holders (many times the film backing touches the hard plastic hinge plate as it slides in) or worse, once it is exposed and has attracted dust, it slides against other exposed sheets inside its package.

[Jadedoto]

I do something similar with my 4x5- I noticed I can fit in two sheets, emulsion concave-in in my SS daylight tank (that would normally fit 2 120 reels).

I put those in there, pour in a little chemistry and put the tank on it's side. As long as I keep it rolling, I get even development like a (gasp!) rotary processor.

[Jordan]

I am fascinated and want to see pictures!!!!!!!! Make me some for 8x10 and I will pay you.

[Kirk Gittings]

An interesting question regarding scratches. I don't do any scanning of my images. They are almost all B&W and I enlarge to my max of 33" in length quite often. No hint of scratches although there are the usual tiny white spots from dust. The 5x7 film slides gently out of the softubes (I usually do this part this under water) so if any scratching is occurring, it would be on the back side as the emulsion never touches anything in this process. It would seem to me that film would be much more vulnerable to scratching while loading into holders (many times the film backing touches the hard plastic hinge plate as it slides in) or worse, once it is exposed and has attracted dust, it slides against other exposed sheets inside its package.

Ed, I am not new to LF, this is my 29th year making a living with LF. Scanning has opened my eyes to all kinds of issues that effect film including cumulative scratching on new and repeatedly printed negatives. Yes film holders scratch film. Everything that touches film can scratch it and most things do to some extent. But most scratches aren't large enough to show up in traditional printing or are in places near the edge that don't matter. Everyone I know who done LF for years before starting to scan, no matter what the development method, has noticed this phenomena to some extent depending on the method. We discussed it on this forum years ago. Scanning film as I describe it above is an accepted method for determining scratching issues with LF film development or whatever. A couple of years ago a retrospective book of my work was made. Mew scanns were made of much of my vintage chromes. It was horrifying to see how much damage had accumulated over the years.

Also the use of window screen with film is not new. though your method is. Window screen has been used by some with some films as a backing to help with the dissolving of some tough anti-halation backings and with rotary tube processing with pyro developers. too vigorous an agitation in a tube with screen as a backing can cause abrasion. Window screen may be sof, but it is much harder than wet film front or back.

[dagabel]

Ed, thanks so much for posting this idea. I'm new to LF (< 1 year), and was getting very unsatisfactory results in my daylight tanks that I use for 35mm and 120 (since I don't have a dark space, I haven't yet tried tray development).

I was about to reluctantly (I'm also on a pretty serious budget) spring for a Jobo 2500-series tank and reels when I read your post. I did everything you suggested, and voila - 3 perfectly developed 4x5 sheets in my small stainless steel tank. My question is, can you really squeeze them in there (perhaps 4 or 5 sheets) and still get even development? For this first time I wanted to make sure there was plenty of room in the tank and the sheets weren't touching.

Thanks again!
Duane

[j.e.simmons]

I'm one of those who used window screen as a backing inside a PVC tube. I occasionally got a negative in which the pattern of the screen was evident. I've never isolated the cause - the negatives with the pattern were not processed any differently than negatives that did not show the pattern. The pattern has showed up on Efke, Forte and Kodak films - I believe all of them were developed in one of the Pyrocats, as that's what I generally use. The pattern does not come off on refixing or rewashing.
juan

[Ed Brock]

In answer to how many sheets can fit into a 120 daylight tank: I shoot 5x7 and 3 of those will fit in a circle on one layer when folded the short way. I can fold them the long way and easily get 4 to a layer, and with some care I squish a 5th softube into the circle. I don't know how that translates into 4x5. Obviously you will be able to get more per layer. These are all touching back to back in various places, but fully protected from scratching inside the screen tubes. I have never had a "screen imprint" on any negative. I don't understand how that could happen unless you accidentally load the film emulsion out so that it contacts the screen. I am using D76 1:1.

[Jim Galli]

Well, thanks for posting this. I'm always game for trying stuff. Been very happy with the JOBO but 11X14 is a royal pain one at a time. I forced myself to do 5 and 6 at a time in a tray with the new 5X14 but now my brain is picturing 6 tubes with 5X14 film in a 2800 series or maybe a 3063 Jobo tank. That would be a fabulous "problem" to solve. 6 5X14's up in the ATL while I'm down having dinner. That would be pretty neat. Maybe 3 12X20's. Very cool! Love it when someone comes up with a good idea these days!

For 5X14 I'm picturing a hard tube that the film goes in, hard tube goes in soft tube. Hold onto end of film while pulling the hard tube out for the next load and etc. I suppose I'll get micro scratches........but you oughta see the abortion I created doing them by hand in a tray. Anything would be better than that.

[Turner Reich]

Stand processing of 12x20? Sounds like a neat idea, got some photo's, although who needs them, I've seen window screens, use them for drying prints.

[Roger Thoms]

At one time 8x10 BTZS tubes were made and you can occasionally find them used (I sold mine a few years ago) but they aren't currently being made (unless things have changed in the last few years, I haven't looked lately).

8x10 BTZS tubes are currently listed on The View Camera Store's website.
Roger

[gliderbee]

In this (old) thread, there's talk about "window screen". I do understand both words separatly, but I don't understand what it is. Plastic ? Fabric ? Can someone please explain or show a picture of it ?

Thanks,
Stefan.

[rdenney]

In this (old) thread, there's talk about "window screen". I do understand both words separatly, but I don't understand what it is. Plastic ? Fabric ? Can someone please explain or show a picture of it ?

Window screen is a metal or fiberglass mesh. When metal, the wire used is fine--perhaps 22-gauge--and the mesh openings are typically 1/16", or somewhere between 1 and 2 mm. They are used over windows to prevent insects, particularly mosquitoes, from entering the house when the windows are open.

Rick "suspecting the fiberglass screen was the preferred material for this project, which still apparently never got off the ground" Denney

[gliderbee]

Window screen is a metal or fiberglass mesh. When metal, the wire used is fine--perhaps 22-gauge--and the mesh openings are typically 1/16", or somewhere between 1 and 2 mm. They are used over windows to prevent insects, particularly mosquitoes, from entering the house when the windows are open.

Rick "suspecting the fiberglass screen was the preferred material for this project, which still apparently never got off the ground" Denney

Ok ! I know what it meant now. Thank you very much !

Stefan.

[ki6mf]

If you are using screen material be careful of two things, this from an experiment I did last year with the HP Combi tanks and using screen material as a separator between sheets of film to do twelve sheets at a time.

1) If its a plastic based material you must temper the screen material in the chemicals you use to wash pigment out of the screen material. I did not and on my test runs had the screen material imprint a criss cross image onto the film. These could not be cleaned off the film and I also did not want to spent the extra time processing.
2) If you use a diluted developer you may need to determine how much developer is needed to develop the additional negatives.

[Curt]

Any pictures, without them it's just an idea?

[BenjaminUK]

Agree with Ron...Great innovation!