Combiplan option

[jeroldharter]

I don't use a Combiplan but I know a number of people use it for 4x5 sheet film processing. I came across this item. Does anyone us it? If so, how is it? I noticed it because the bottles look like Jobo bottles but I can't be sure.

http://www.novadarkroom.com/product/386/Nova_ANFP-D54_Film_Processor.html

http://www.novadarkroom.com/images/products/resized/shop_FP54%20Daylight.jpg

[Gem Singer]

The tank and the film rack are made by HP Combi-Plan.

The temperature control unit is made by Nova.

Nova and Jobo are/were owned by the same company in the UK.

So, those probably are Jobo bottles.

[frotog]

Too bad about the one litre bottles. I maybe wrong, but doesn't the combi-plan call for 1250 cc?

[jp]

the combiplan uses 1L. I develop B&W at 70f, so I dont' need the temp regulation. If you were doing color, it would be a handy option.

[ChrisN]

My Combiplan tank calls for 1050ml - one litre is just a little too low and leaves the top edge of the negs improperly developed.

[frotog]

My Combiplan tank calls for 1050ml - one litre is just a little too low and leaves the top edge of the negs improperly developed.

Exactly, and 1050ml just covers it. I like to use mine with rapidly oxidizing staining developers like PMK which is why I go for the close-to-all-the-way filled 1250ml of solution. This Nova thing looks like another nifty but expensive darkroom toy that would definitely get shelved after realizing it's limitations. Besides, why should a holding bath cost half a grand? I'd take a tuperware container and my thermostatic mixing valve over this gewgaw any day of the week.

[Bob Salomon]

Our HP Combi-Plan T system is an inversion style processing tank that was designed so the chemistry can flow when the tank is inverted. To make sure that the proper amount of chemistry is used so an empty space is left in a properly filled Combi-Plan to ensure that the chemistry can flow the required amount of chemistry is listed for both inch and cm sizes on the inside bottom of the lid. This amount is enough so the film is fully immersed and still leaves room for the chemistry to flow when the tank is inverted.

For those of you doing 4x5" in oz the Combi-Plan calls for 36oz. For those of you working in cm it calls for 1250ccm. 9x12cm, 8.5x10cm require 1000 ccm, 6.5x9cm calls for 800ccm. In OZ 3.5 x 4.75" and 3.25 x 4.25 use 35 Oz and 2.5 x 3.25 uses 28oz.

[philbed]

Thanks Bob,
When I read your answer I understand you never never use a combiplan to develop sheet film. Too bad isn't it ?

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks Bob,
When I read your answer I understand you never never use a combiplan to develop sheet film. Too bad isn't it ?

Have used one since the early 60s to develop sheet film. Of course then it was still the Krause tank. It then became the Gepe tank and in the late 70s we bought it and began manufacturing it and it became the HP Combi System. Tools and specs have never changed in all that time. The only thing that did change was that we discontinued the lab lid and the floating lid for the L version and stayed with the more popular T version. That happened in 83 or 84 when we also discontinued the 57 T and L system and the compact and standard 35mm and roll film processing tanks. Have used them all and then other systems as well. Including Versamats from Kodak and Morse as well as deep tank nitrongen burst.

[Tim k]

Bob 1, Phil 0

[philbed]

Please Tim, reread ChrisN answer. 36oz is more than 1 liter.

[Tim k]

Phil,
I did go back and read Bobs answer. Looks ok to me. In fact its pretty much a copy of the inside lid of my tank. And for whatever its worth, I just went and measured my tank in oz and 36 was just about right.
Now perhaps he might be guilty of a typo somewhere? You think?

[Bob Salomon]

"Now perhaps he might be guilty of a typo somewhere?"

Where?

Thanks

[Tim k]

Bob, I'm on your side. Guess I didn't understand Phils point.

[ChrisN]

1050cc = 35.50 US fluid ounces = 36.95 UK fluid ounces.

Or just 36 oz (if you believe the printed instruction sheet).

I'll stick with metric, thanks!

[Scotty230358]

That particular Nova processor will also accept Paterson tanks.

[mandoman7]

I believe there's a question as to how even the development is with these tanks. Sheet film is incredibly sensitive to how the developer swirls over the surface. Its not an issue, usually, until you shoot some clear skies, and then you'll notice some uneven tones around the negative edges or blotches of darker or lighter areas.

There was an article in View Camera about this subject some years ago, with comparative tests of all methods, and small tanks of all kinds came up short compared to tank or tube development methods. I was using tanks and did the tests and found out for myself. As with many things, its best to test before processing film from an important shoot.

With all due respect, Mr Salomon knows the history of the equipment, but he's not saying that he has successfully used the product, nor is he presenting any work to verify his knowledge of the demands of the process.

[theBDT]

I believe there's a question as to how even the development is with these tanks.

There is? That's news to me, and to the hundreds of others who use these tanks and get immaculate results.


There was an article in View Camera about this subject some years ago, with comparative tests of all methods, and small tanks of all kinds came up short compared to tank or tube development methods. I was using tanks and did the tests and found out for myself. As with many things, its best to test before processing film from an important shoot.

And I have done extensive tests with the Combi myself; as long as I remember drain the developer with the tank UPSIDE DOWN, I have always had wonderful negatives, with even skies. I used the Jobo system at my college, so I have a good baseline to compare against. The Combi tanks are fussy, but if you are willing to work with them, they will produce PERFECT negatives.

I call bullsh*t. Show us some actual quotes from that article. If they tested the Yankee tank, then yes, I could see them coming up with those results (Yankee tank is worthless). If they used a Combi, and followed, the directions, I really doubt they panned it. Either the magazine writers were incompetent testers or (more likely) you mis-read or mis-understood (or are distorting) their results.

I have no doubt that the rotary and dip-n-dunk tank methods are easier, and can produce consistent results with less fuss. It's amusing, though, how you're trying to negate hundreds, if not thousands, of well-developed negatives, many of which have been posted to THIS forum.


With all due respect, Mr Salomon knows the history of the equipment, but he's not saying that he has successfully used the product, nor is he presenting any work to verify his knowledge of the demands of the process.

Why should he? All the proof he would ever need has already been supplied by many fine photographers right here in this form. Most everyone who has a problem with the Combi tanks can find the true fault with themselves: they didn't bother to read the directions, nor did they read-up online about draining the tank upside down (though frankly, it's common sense).

[Bob Salomon]

With all due respect, Mr Salomon knows the history of the equipment, but he's not saying that he has successfully used the product, nor is he presenting any work to verify his knowledge of the demands of the process.

I think that you have a selective reading habit. Maybe you missed my first line in my answer that you referred to. Here it is again but this time by itself.

"Have used one since the early 60s to develop sheet film"

Can't be much clearer then that, can it?

[Robbie Bedell]

I'll stand by the Combi Tank. I go exactly by the directions and always have clean even negatives. Filling and draining seem slow, but never have I seen any negative effects. (No pun intended)...The only thing I do differently is load my film into the slots by feel, not with the film guide. I sat down one night in the dark and loaded it over and over again with the guide and now I can do it by feel with no problem. Robbie Bedell

http://robbiebedell.photoshelter.com

[Robbie Bedell]

That is WITHOUT the guide!

[mandoman7]

I regret the tone of my earlier post and appreciate the diplomatic replies. I had my own experience with these and other tanks in the past and assumed they were more universal than is actually the case. I still would have to see flash tests to be willing to rely on this method, just as with any other choice of processing.