which is best?????????

[ignatiusjk]

I'm thinking of getting a daylight style developing tank for my B&W work and was looking at the HP combo plan T. It seems OK and easy to use.The only thing I'm not crazy about is that it uses alot of chemistry.If I'm only doing 2-3 sheets that's alot of chemistry.Any other solutions are welcome. I also am limited in space as well,otherwise I would go with trays.

[Toyon]

The combi uses less chemistry than a lot of other systems. If you want to save money and/or chemistry use a more dilute developer - the cheapest being Rodinal at 1:100.

[David de Gruyl]

It works well, but it does leak.

As for 2 sheets: as Toyon said. Use Rodinal 1+50 or 1+100. Cheapest thing out there. (I find that I need more capacity, not less.)

[John Kasaian]

For a daylight processor---Unicolor!

[Ari]

If you can find one at a reasonable price, which rarely happens, the JOBO 4x5 tanks and reels are a treat to use. Easy to load, give consistent results with a minimum of chemistry.

[d.s.]

Uniroller with Unicolor paper tank. 350ml of chem. for up to 4 sheets of 4x5. I plug mine into a simple GraLab timer. Consistent, repeatable results with minimal chems. Right now I'm using HC-110 H, But have used D-76 straight and 1:1.

d.s.

[Toyon]

Try out a couple of systems. In the long run, the system that gives you the most consistent results over time should be the one you keep using. At this point, consistency, not lowest cost, or least use of chemistry should be your primary consideration. If your goal is to be as green as possible, consider using low impact chemistry such as Kodak's Xtol or Silvergrain products. You may also want to shoot more film! Remember that the cost of film is likely to be a small cost compared with your time and effort in getting to a scene or person you want to shoot. It is always handy to have an extra shot of a scene, and it gives you a chance to try out a different stop/speed/filter and it will save you if one negative is lost due to error.

[Stephane]

Paterson orbital, 200ml chemistry, 4 4x5, 2 5x5 or 1 8x10.
You should remove the fins as they scratched 8x10 negatives (and I thought it was light leaks from the camera). If you get the power base, you are in for an easy life :)
read this and you might be convinced:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20how%20orbital.html

[David de Gruyl]

did anyone mention BTZS tubes? I use them for 8x10 (they work fine). I imagine that the 4x5 are easy to use, for certain variations on easy. You can do from one to six negatives at a time (theoretically) and only use the chemistry you need. I think they use 2 oz per 4x5 negative.

One thing: you can do all the processing in the tubes (dev / stop / fix), unlike the recommended workflow. Juggling caps is not that easy, but otherwise, it is straightforward.

If you can pour in the dark, you can even do stand / semi-stand developing. The only problem is the requirement for a darkroom for the initial developer charge. I think you might be able to use a tent on a table, with a tray inside, for this. I don't have the small ones to try that with. (you can use low light for transfer to stop and fix).

Ok... they are not that great, but they are sealed and adjustable in every way possible for custom developing on a per negative basis.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use BTZS tubes for both 4x5 and 8x10. If you want to save on chemistry, want nice even development, then they are the way to go. A 4x5 tube uses about 60ml and 8x10 uses about 250ml.


If you can pour in the dark, you can even do stand / semi-stand developing.

I use them for stand all the time. You do not have to pour in the dark. Fill the tube with developer with the light on, remove sheet of film from holder with the light off, slip film into tube, cap it, turn light on, and Bob's yer uncle.

[David de Gruyl]

I use them for stand all the time. You do not have to pour in the dark. Fill the tube with developer with the light on, remove sheet of film from holder with the light off, slip film into tube, cap it, turn light on, and Bob's yer uncle.

The 8x10 is easy enough to pour into, even in the dark. I would rather drip a bit into a splash tray than try to wrangle an 8x10 piece of film into a full container of chemistry. But I can see that it might work.

[bvstaples]

I use a Paterson Orbital on a motorized base. I removed the fins from the light trap. I process four 4x5s at a time, or one 8x10. I use about 250ml of chemistry per tank. I get very even consistent results from this device. Problem is finding them (check UK eBay), and when you do, be prepared to pay for them.

Brian

[Andrew O'Neill]

The 8x10 is easy enough to pour into, even in the dark. I would rather drip a bit into a splash tray than try to wrangle an 8x10 piece of film into a full container of chemistry. But I can see that it might work.

Like I said, I do it all the time, so I know it works. This way, your hands are dry when you go for the film.

[Chiron]

I use JOBO expert 3010 with Unicolor Motorbase. Work very well.
Check out the discussion here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=58864&highlight=JOBO+expert+3010
And Michael E. Gordon video is very helpful.
http://michaelegordon.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/how-to-video-daylight-sheet-film-4x5-development-2/

[Brian Stein]

Paterson orbital, 200ml chemistry, 4 4x5, 2 5x5 or 1 8x10.
You should remove the fins as they scratched 8x10 negatives (and I thought it was light leaks from the camera). If you get the power base, you are in for an easy life :)
read this and you might be convinced:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20how%20orbital.html

I will definitely second this.

[ki6mf]

Tried them all and like the HP Combi tanks the best. You should agitate them so like they are attached to the steering wheel of a car or the volume of fluid can pop the film out from the groves that hold the film in the holder. I have 4 and and use them all the time. I would avoid Yankee Daylight agitation tanks at all costs as they are not an inversion tank. Jobo are good only expensive and harder to load, in my opinion. I find the slower pour times for the HP not to be a problem however I use a diluted developer and 14 minutes is the normal development time for my work flow.