Taco Developing 8X10

[jmooney]

Has anyone tried the taco method with 8X10? I don't see why it wouldn't work given an 8 roll tank doing 2 sheets at a time. Any thoughts or experiences?

Take care,

Jim

[Mark Woods]

Not a clue what the taco method is. Please explain.

[jmooney]

The sheets are folded over and held with cotton hair bands and placed in a standard 35mm tank:

(not my image, borrowed from a Flikr discussion)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/110/257236162_352bed18af.jpg

[dng88]

Interesting ... any answer?

[Mark Woods]

Interesting. I would think there are going to be clearing issues with the bands. The Patterson (I think) tank couldn't be worse. Amazing. Do you get good results?

[Jay DeFehr]

Yes, it works just fine. Continuous inversion agitation is the most random and provides the most even development.

[jmooney]

Yes, it works just fine. Continuous inversion agitation is the most random and provides the most even development.

Have you tried it with 8X10?

[BetterSense]

It sounds like this method wouldn't be practical for 8x10 because you would need some giant amount of developer. It's not too bad in a 500mL roll film tank but if you scaled it up to 10 inches tall you are going to need a lot of developer.

[Ari]

You can read this article:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=30099&highlight=window+screen

It seems like a very good solution and inexpensive to boot.

[Sal Santamaura]

...The Patterson (I think) tank couldn't be worse...Why?

[Jay DeFehr]

Yes, I've done it many times. With continuous inversion agitation, a small volume of developer is sufficient.

[banjo]

hay all
Kodak use to make a tank back in the 1920 or so
Ebad # 390253336356
its more or less a Taco

[Farside]

hay all
Kodak use to make a tank back in the 1920 or so
Ebad # 390253336356
its more or less a Taco
Damn. Now that's clever. Only goes to show, it's all been done before.

[John Kasaian]

The lamp house on my 8x10 enlarger is a great tortilla warmer. I'm getting hungry! :D

[ando]

Hi Jay
I would be interested to find out about your continuous inversion for 8x10 taco.
What developer and times are you using. Any examples?

tks
Antonio


Yes, I've done it many times. With continuous inversion agitation, a small volume of developer is sufficient.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Antonio,

I use continuous inversion agitation, meaning I turn the tube end over end, with some twisting, slowly, but continuously. It's fairly aggressive, but very random. The attached is Arista EDU Ultra 400 (Fomapan 400), developed in 510-Pyro 1:100, 7:30, 70F, continuous inversion agitation.

[Chauncey Walden]

I have two of those vintage Kodak taco tanks. They are the cat's meow for 4x5 film packs. The ultra thin pack film is difficult to load into a spiral without krinkles but just a simple fold and it is in the taco tank.

[Rayt]

Hi Jay,

Do you use the 8 reel Paterson tank? How many sheets can you stuff in there? A 8x10 sheet is still pretty wide even taco'ed. I can't image more than one sheet in a Paterson tank.

Best,
Ray

[Jay DeFehr]

Ray,

Yes, I think that's the tank. I'm not at home so I can't check to see how many reels it holds. Two sheets go in nicely. I might be able to get 3 in, but I haven't tried.

[ando]

Jay,

thank you very much for the reply. Is it correct to say that the times would be like rotary processing.

btw really like the picture, nice tones.

Antonio

[Rayt]

Thanks Jay. You are very helpful!

[Jay DeFehr]

Happy to help, Rayt.

[Lachlan 717]

Can someone well versed in this process please post a photo of the film in its Taco style? I think I understand the process, but a picture is worth 1000 words…

Thanks!

[Liam:]

Can someone well versed in this process please post a photo of the film in its Taco style? I think I understand the process, but a picture is worth 1000 words…

Thanks!

post 3

[Rayt]

post 3

I think post 3 shows 4x5 sheets. I am curious how 8x10 would fit.

[Lachlan 717]

Anyone have thoughts/experiences on doing 7x17 film this way (in a 3063 tank, perhaps)?

[Liam:]

Sorry, I guess it would be the same but I doubt you could fit 4 sheets in, maybe 2...

[woosang]

Fabulous idea! I was pondering how I would process 8X10.. I bought a camera on beauty then thought about film developing... I'll certainly try this

[jeroldharter]

I think that for just 2 sheets at a time, the BTZS would be much simpler with less chance for scratching and likely lower volumes of chemistry.

[Jay DeFehr]

I think that for just 2 sheets at a time, the BTZS would be much simpler with less chance for scratching and likely lower volumes of chemistry.

Not for me. To do 2 sheets in BTZS tubes requires 2 tubes to be loaded, timed, rotated, unloaded, with each tube requiring about the same volume of solution as one Paterson tank with 2 sheets, and the Paterson tank is a daylight tank that fills and empties quickly and efficiently in room light. As for scratches, it's not easy to scratch a negative with the taco method, since the emulsion is inside the curl. It can be done, but not more easily than with a BTZS tube. Tacos are easier to remove from the Paterson tank than film from a BTZS tube, which is a prime opportunity for scratches.

[jeroldharter]

The BTZS tubes don't use much chemistry. You are very knowledgeable but sometimes using small volumes of dilute solutions can be a false economy because the large sheet film needs threshold levels of development agents.

I suppose that curling a big sheet of film and wrapping a tensioning band around it in the dark with the taco method is about the same risk of scratching as wrestling the film in and out of the BTZS tubes.

I use BTZS tubes in room light. I probably don't need to, but I switch to dim lighting for the stop bath and then back to full room light in the fix.

I agree that 4x5 tubes can be a nuisance because of all the pieces but here we are talking about two 8x10 tubes and 4 caps. Certainly manageable. Also, the tubes allow for different developers, dilutions, and/or times to be used on each sheet in the run. The tubes are ideal for use in a water bath as well so temperature control can be very good.

[Jay DeFehr]

Jerold,

I don't think using two BTZS tubes instead of one Paterson tank is going to save chemicals. The scratch issue is probably a draw, and very manageable in either case. Same goes for the water bath- there's no reason a Paterson tank can't be floated in a water bath; I've done it, but found it unnecessary for temperature control. Since moving to Seattle in April, I've been working without a thermometer, including carbon printing, and can't say I miss having one, but I understand others have more exacting standards. For me, handling one tank is simpler than handling two, and not worrying about fogging my film is nice, too.

[gevalia]

Hi Antonio,

I use continuous inversion agitation, meaning I turn the tube end over end, with some twisting, slowly, but continuously. It's fairly aggressive, but very random. The attached is Arista EDU Ultra 400 (Fomapan 400), developed in 510-Pyro 1:100, 7:30, 70F, continuous inversion agitation.

Jay,

Thought about trying the Arista Ultra Edu 400 for a faster film that is cheaper than my HP5+. What speed do you rate it at? I'm a bit concerned I'll end up with around 200 and that won't do for me (dev in pyrocathd).

[Jay DeFehr]

Ron,

I think you're probably right; Foma 400 in Pyrocat HD will likely land around EI 200, for scenes of normal contrast to be printed on silver paper. I rate it at box speed, but that's a very loose estimation. I don't usually use a light meter, my subjects are usually fairly close to my lens, and I'm not terribly concerned with detail in deep shadows, so I doubt my methods are very meaningful for you. Sorry I can't be more helpful.