buze
12-Mar-2008, 12:59
So far I have developed most of my film (4x5, and 8x10) in a Paterson Orbital daylight tank. It works great for 4x5, a bit more tough for 8x10 but overall the development times I get are consistent.
I use Barry Thornston (Metol) 2 bath and 5:5 gives me great result, and I can push to 10:5 or even 12:5 for 'alt process' bulletproof density.
Recently I equiped with IR goggles with the goal of 1) being able to tray develop and therefore do more sheets at a time 2) inspect.
I can "inspect" allright, however it turns out that using the same developer, I have to /at least/ double the times to get any density at all. 10:5 will give me an "OK" neg bu nowhere near the density I get in the Orbital.
Anyone has an idea why ? I 'agitate' by moving the neg from the bottom of the 'stack' to the top every minute or so... the temperatures are roughtly the same (Barry's is pretty consistent regardless of temperature anyway) and I really don't know why the tray development could make such a difference.
And yes, I use 940nm illumination and the eyepiece is covered...
I use Barry Thornston (Metol) 2 bath and 5:5 gives me great result, and I can push to 10:5 or even 12:5 for 'alt process' bulletproof density.
Recently I equiped with IR goggles with the goal of 1) being able to tray develop and therefore do more sheets at a time 2) inspect.
I can "inspect" allright, however it turns out that using the same developer, I have to /at least/ double the times to get any density at all. 10:5 will give me an "OK" neg bu nowhere near the density I get in the Orbital.
Anyone has an idea why ? I 'agitate' by moving the neg from the bottom of the 'stack' to the top every minute or so... the temperatures are roughtly the same (Barry's is pretty consistent regardless of temperature anyway) and I really don't know why the tray development could make such a difference.
And yes, I use 940nm illumination and the eyepiece is covered...