4x5 single sheet developing... best method?

[thart2009]

Still a newbie in the larger formats. I want to experiment with different developers and wonder what might be the best method for developing single sheets (1 or 2) of 4x5 film... rather than filling the whole tank up with 1000ml of solution. Any suggestions are helpful. Thanks.. Tom

[Louie Powell]

If you are only doing one sheet, then a tray is the simplest answer. I have a number of 4x5 and 5x7 trays that work just fine. Put the film in emulsion side up, and agitate by rocking the tray - no scratching.

If you are doing two sheets, you can shuffle in an open tray - minimum 5x7 for 4x5 film. There is a risk of scratching, but with only two sheets, it's possible (not guaranteed) that you can avoid scratching by simply being careful. In my experience, however, as the number of sheets increases, so does the risk of scratching.

I have a two-sheet slosher that fits in an 8x10 tray. With sloshers, there is no risk of scratching at all, and development is very consistent. But with an 8x10 tray, you will need a bit more solution. That's not a big economic penalty, but it could be a consideration.

[Joanna Carter]

If you don't have a darkroom, then try to get yourself a Paterson Orbital processor.

[Eric Woodbury]

I'd use a tube. There is only ever one sheet in a tube so the development is always the same. Doing more sheets is just more tubes. With other techniques, you can get variation as more sheets changes agitation or loads the developer differently.

There are BZTS tubes, but I made my own from ABS pipe, caps, and couplings. 2.5 inch diameter and I can do 4x5 and 5x7. Get caps that are flat so the tubes can stand on their own.

[Bob Salomon]

Doing more sheets is just more tubes. With other techniques, you can get variation as more sheets changes agitation or loads the developer differently.

Strange, with the Combi-Plan using 1 sheet or 6 sheets or 12 sheets (of B&W back to back) uses the same amount of chemistry, uses the same agitation and the chemical exhaustion is the same since the developer oxidizes at the same rate for each of the above loads since the development times are the same so the exposure to air is the same.

[Jim Noel]

In a tray! It beats all the tank methods in every respect. Less chance of streaking, more even development, etc

[PenGun]

Strange, with the Combi-Plan using 1 sheet or 6 sheets or 12 sheets (of B&W back to back) uses the same amount of chemistry, uses the same agitation and the chemical exhaustion is the same since the developer oxidizes at the same rate for each of the above loads since the development times are the same so the exposure to air is the same.

But the tubes kill for one or two sheets. Each one has it's own tiny amount of developer and you have no minimum useful load.

[Bob Salomon]

In a tray! It beats all the tank methods in every respect. Less chance of streaking, more even development, etc

And an excellent chance for sheets to stick together, as one thread today indicated, or for scratching. It also is great for fingernail staining and for any cuts or scrapes on your fingers! Also the aroma of the chemistry doesn't always easily come of the hands.

And it is no way more even or less chance of streaking then closed tank like the Combi or open tank like nitrogen burst deep tank or several other methods including dip and dunk and roller transport.

[Eric Woodbury]

Bob, there is loading from the film itself, not just the air. (For 20 years I developed my film in a nitrogen atmosphere in a Jobo. If I ran one or two sheets, I had to load some of the other cylinders with exposed/blank film.)

I don't know a Combi plan, but the other advantage I find for tubes is that if I'm running more than one sheet of film, they can all be different times.

Compared to trays, I don't risk scratching and uneven development and I don't have to spend all that time in the dark. And sewer pipe is widely available, always will be, and is indestructible.

One other possibility is the hybrid tube-tray method: using a piece of pipe to hold the film and put the tube (or tubes) in a tray of developer. This, however, must be done in total, full-time darkness.

[Ken Lee]

...what might be the best method for developing single sheets (1 or 2) of 4x5 film... rather than filling the whole tank up with 1000ml of solution

Try some plastic food containers (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/devtray.html). If you get the right size, you need less chemistry, and they are much cheaper than photo trays.

[Heroique]

In a tray! It beats all the tank methods in every respect. Less chance of streaking, more even development, etc.


And an excellent chance for sheets to stick together, as one thread today indicated, or for scratching. It also is great for fingernail staining and for any cuts or scrapes on your fingers! Also the aroma of the chemistry doesn't always easily come of the hands.

And it is no way more even or less chance of streaking then closed tank like the Combi or open tank like nitrogen burst deep tank or several other methods including dip and dunk and roller transport.

Although it’s against my better judgment (and rather medieval of me) to cite authority rather than to suggest that one simply find the best match between personal darkroom habits and the most suitable processing method, here goes –

“My personal preference is to develop sheet or film-pack in a tray,” AA says in The Negative. “I find this assures more even development than tank development, provided the trays are large enough to allow for generous movement during agitation.”

Personally, I like sloshing two 4x5 sheets, and counter-intuitively, shuffling 3 or 4 – then back to sloshing if it’s 5 or 6. But I don’t think I’d suggest my way as a preferred choice for others. What finally works best for you may also prove unique.

:rolleyes:

[Paul H]

In a tray! It beats all the tank methods in every respect. Less chance of streaking, more even development, etc

Or get a "daylight tray" - a Paterson Orbital. Since you only need 100-150ml of developer solution for up to four 4x5" sheets, it's very economical. Your only issue will be finding one - best place to look is ebay UK.

[ic-racer]

If I do 1 or 2 sheets of 4x5 alone I use the little 2820 Jobo tank. 40cc minimum chemistry to cover the film.

[Roger Thoms]

I find that the BZST type tubes work quite well. If you use a water bath to roll the tubes in, then development is very even. A friend tried using a type of moter base and got streaking. With a water bath the rocking motion is quite random and eliminates streaking. There are lots of methods for developing sheet film, this is just what I happen to like.

Roger

[thart2009]

The Paterson Orbital looks like a great item to put on my wish list. The tubes also sound like a good method that I will try. Now to fabricate a baffle to allow daylight changing of chems?

[J Ney]

I know alot of folks use trays, but I've found that a 4.5" pyrex loaf pan (pick it up at any kitchen supply store) works really well for developing single or multiple sheets. Same concept, but I think it is a better tool for the job.

[Ari]

I've never tried it, but you might look up the "taco method". It involves some elastic bands and a two-reel plastic tank, but I have read that very good results have been obtained, and with a minimum of chemistry.

[ki6mf]

Daylight tanks have covered in past threads on this web page. If you do any kind of volume and want daylight development you choices are Jobo, HP Combi or Yankee. I personally use the HP combo as i often develop 10-15 sheets at a time and single sheets in trays are to time consuming for my production. I have 4 HP Combi tanks and they work fine. I use them as a daylight inversion tank. I would avoid the Yankee tanks, I have two of them too, as these are not inversion tanks,are not sealed, and are easy to spill liquid and drop the developer level below the top of your film. If you buy tubes only get BTZS tubes as plastic from a building supply can leak light and is not made to keep light out from the tube walls. Others like the Jobo tanks and I tried them and like the fast load of the HP Combi tanks better. Many of the complaints about the HP Combi stem from not opening the spickets enough to let the air escape and this creates for very long pour times. This is operator error. I have been getting excellent results for many years now with the Combi tank

[Deniz Merdanogullari]

I often use a Paterson 35mm-120 film tank without the reels to develop 2 sheets at a time.
load in the dark, rest is done in daylight. CONVENIENCE and consistency.

I use a 4 reel tank to do my 8x10s in.
works for me. so it should for you.