PDA

View Full Version : price of 3005 drums: are we getting to a state of lunacy?



Daniel Stone
15-Dec-2010, 20:04
hey guys,

I was watching a 3005 drum on ebay tonight, logged on tonight to bid, little did I know the price I was gonna look at: $750!!!!!

now, this drum was described as in "mint" condtition, but this being ebay, I take everything with a big grain 'o salt :).

here's the linky-poo to the drum in question

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rt=nc&nma=true&item=170575951964&si=penSDEgVJYlSSMQB36PJGsnE3gw%253D&viewitem=&sspagename=ADME%3AB%3AWNA%3AUS%3A1123

anyone have any ideas if we'll see theses drums(which I'd take are getting rare?) go over the $1k mark soon? I can't imagine the almighty dollar is falling THAT fast...

any ideas?

I'm still in the market for one, for developing my 8x10 color negs, but a price even 1/2 of this is what I thought the "going rate" was...

-Dan

vinny
15-Dec-2010, 20:13
I got some last year for 200 and one came with a jobo processor i paid only $130 for. I'm lucky, i guess.

Jim Cole
15-Dec-2010, 20:13
When I saw some going for $600 a couple of months back, I was amazed. I better take care of the one I have. I could never afford another one.

Daniel Stone
15-Dec-2010, 20:13
vinny,

got an "extra" you'd be interested in selling by chance? I only need one :)

-Dan

jeroldharter
15-Dec-2010, 20:34
I was bidding on that too. Too rich for my blood.

Maybe Kodak will start making them instead of film?

Daniel Stone
15-Dec-2010, 20:47
Jerold,

at least there isn't any silver in it, just injection-molded plastic :).

I can't imagine the final costs of making one of these drums is all that high materials-wise, but the initial design and tooling costs are what needs to be re-couped.

but why not just clone it and make a few design changes?

didn't someone make something like a 3005(more like a 8x10 3006 IIRC) out of a 2500-series drum?

-Dan

Heespharm
15-Dec-2010, 20:59
The Jobo impossible project anyone??

domaz
15-Dec-2010, 21:14
Jerold,

didn't someone make something like a 3005(more like a 8x10 3006 IIRC) out of a 2500-series drum?

-Dan

Yes (http://www.galerie-photo.com/porte-film-jobo.html). If you don't want to read French someone on APUG (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum43/23456-5x7-film-processing-jobo-print-drum.html) made one as well. I would do this before I dropped $600. Actually for less than $600 I would bet you could get a 3006 custom made somehow. Can plastic be CNCed?

jeroldharter
15-Dec-2010, 21:21
Jerold,

at least there isn't any silver in it, just injection-molded plastic :).

I can't imagine the final costs of making one of these drums is all that high materials-wise, but the initial design and tooling costs are what needs to be re-couped.

but why not just clone it and make a few design changes?

didn't someone make something like a 3005(more like a 8x10 3006 IIRC) out of a 2500-series drum?

-Dan

Where are the Chinese when we need them? Or those guys who build their own LED light sources or build their own field cameras? They could crank out the ersatz Jobo 3000 by the dozen and make some money!

Seems like someone could put some thin PVC tubes inside a larger tube to approximate a Jobo. Seems like I saw something like that. Maybe tubes of window screen inside a cheaper Jobo print drum.

Allen in Montreal
15-Dec-2010, 21:25
When I saw some going for $600 a couple of months back, I was amazed. I better take care of the one I have. I could never afford another one.

I bought a spare 3006 for under 200, I am glad I did.
I wish I had bought 10!
Since word of Jobo ending the last few things they did make for the system, spread, the prices jumped. I bet the fall again in a few months when the rush to get one "before they are all gone" slides.

Eric Woodbury
15-Dec-2010, 21:32
I sold one for about what I paid for it a year or so. I guess I should have held out and gouged somebody...nah... just not right.

Jim C.
15-Dec-2010, 22:08
Holey Moley ! That auction ended at $795.

I like reverse engineering stuff and from what I can tell the only things
injection molded on the Expert drums are the body and the lid, the inner
chambers look to me to be vacuum formed.

Brian C. Miller
15-Dec-2010, 22:23
Or those guys who build their own LED light sources or build their own field cameras?

Do you want something that attaches to the cog wheel, or is spinning by itself on a roller base good enough?

It is quite possible to build a multi-sheet daylight chemical tank out of black plastic. Building something which works with the Jobo system is quite a different proposition.

Since there is still a Jobo website, I am absolutely certain that anything which would connect to it would infringe on their patents. Anyone creating a compatible pseudo-commercial product would wind up facing attorneys.

However, if you would be satisfied with something that doesn't fit on a Jobo cog system and simply bathes film in solution, then any method will work. Looking at the Tap Plastics (http://www.tapplastics.com/shop/category.php?bid=16&) site, I see that they have sheets that can be bent and cut, and they have lids. Now, I'd make the lid a two-piece design, with a liquid-tight lid and a light-tight cover. Sure, you'd have to douse the lights when changing chemicals, but it's not a Jobo drum.

JamesLee
15-Dec-2010, 22:36
I bought a new 3005 drum in China last year,I paid $600.00.

jeroldharter
15-Dec-2010, 22:48
Do you want something that attaches to the cog wheel, or is spinning by itself on a roller base good enough?...

I use a roller base now. I don't need any more drums, but there is an active market.

msk2193
15-Dec-2010, 22:49
Isn't the free market a wonderful thing!

Jim C.
16-Dec-2010, 00:46
Isn't the free market a wonderful thing!

It is until someone gets the CC bill ;)

Henry Ambrose
16-Dec-2010, 06:01
I think I can make drums that will work for a -lot- less than $600-700. They won't have the same lid arrangement but they'll work. I have some of the smaller tanks here but no 3005. If anyone is serious about making drums send me a PM.

msk2193
16-Dec-2010, 07:33
Hnery,

What do you think the mold for the blowmolded insert would set you back? A pretty penny for sure!

Henry Ambrose
16-Dec-2010, 10:44
Hnery,

What do you think the mold for the blowmolded insert would set you back? A pretty penny for sure!

Which is why they would not be molded.
I suspect the prototypes were not molded but fabricated.
A little re-thinking is in order.
I'm thinkin' on it.

al olson
16-Dec-2010, 13:45
. . .
Seems like someone could put some thin PVC tubes inside a larger tube to approximate a Jobo. Seems like I saw something like that. Maybe tubes of window screen inside a cheaper Jobo print drum.

IIRC, I believe that it was Jorge G. who claimed to be using PVC tubes within a regular Jobo drum. An inner diameter of 1.8" would allow a 5" film to be wrapped within the tube. But of course the next larger standard size PVC tube would be required. The cut PVC would require careful sanding to remove all of the burrs.

Given the outer diameter of such tube, a good question would be how many of these PVC tubes can be placed within standard 2500 or 2800 series Jobo drums?

Note that the 2521 and 2820 drums can't be used by themselves because the raised bottom that fits into the reel reduces the usable height of the drum. It appears that it would allow only slightly over 3" of PVC tube. This would necessitate a larger drum. Then there is the question of the load on the motor when the PVC tubes are added to the drum.

domaz
16-Dec-2010, 14:12
IIRC, I believe that it was Jorge G. who claimed to be using PVC tubes within a regular Jobo drum

This guy did it too (http://forum.mflenses.com/diy-jobo-expert-drum-t28961.html). Homemade PVC pipe devices are the pits IMO though because so much careful sanding is required to make them usable without scratching your film like sandpaper.

bob carnie
16-Dec-2010, 14:44
I have about 8 of them I must be a gazzilionare .

Jay DeFehr
16-Dec-2010, 15:10
How would you feel about a system that allowed you to develop 10 sheets of 8x10 in less than a liter of solution, in daylight, with intermittent agitation?

Daniel Stone
16-Dec-2010, 15:26
Jay,

that could be interesting. (MY) primary inclination for this little "project" would be primarily for color(c-41,maybe some E-6) developing of 8x10 film.

even though I have a great lab to do it already(Samy's in S.B. for $5/sheet), if I can do them for roughly $1/sheet in chem costs(NOT counting my time standing at the machine of course), being able to do 4 at a time, and save $500-600 dollars or more, its worth it for me in the long run. Save some serious $$$ for more film, and a drum scanner eventually :).

I develop my b/w in trays, so I'm set for that, this (for me) would be for color only, but for others could work for b/w in Jobo tanks.

-Dan

Daniel Stone
16-Dec-2010, 15:27
This guy did it too (http://forum.mflenses.com/diy-jobo-expert-drum-t28961.html). Homemade PVC pipe devices are the pits IMO though because so much careful sanding is required to make them usable without scratching your film like sandpaper.

I wouldn't be sanding the pipe, rather, chucking it in the lathe and tapering it. Much easier, and looks better too :).

-Dan

Chuck Pere
17-Dec-2010, 07:45
Don't forget the expert drum cylinders are barrel shaped. But people seem to use straight tubes without problems.

Daniel Stone
17-Dec-2010, 10:07
chuck,

do you mean they're slightly tapered? Not so much as to be a cone, but just ever so slightly?

-Dan

Oren Grad
17-Dec-2010, 10:19
do you mean they're slightly tapered? Not so much as to be a cone, but just ever so slightly?

Barrel-shaped, not cone-shaped. This assures that the base as well as the emulsion side of the film sees the processing solutions. Also, between the wells and the outer wall the drums are hollow, with slots on the bottom rim to let water in from the tempering bath so that the drum also serves as a water jacket to speed temperature equilibration.

Yes, it's possible to develop film successfully without these features. But it does help explain why the drums cost $250 each when they were still in production rather than $25.

Drew Wiley
17-Dec-2010, 10:54
I think I have one of these Jobo drums laying around the dkrm barely used, and don't plan on using it since I have other options. I'll look at it tommorow and see if it has a
model # - it takes four or five sheets of 8x10 film in individual inner drums as I recall; plus I have the cap, foot pump, and cleaning wand. Would just want ot recover my
cost on it if someone need this, but don't want to ship anything till Jan.

Jim Michael
17-Dec-2010, 10:59
More info please.


How would you feel about a system that allowed you to develop 10 sheets of 8x10 in less than a liter of solution, in daylight, with intermittent agitation?

Jack Dahlgren
17-Dec-2010, 11:49
More info please.

Wouldn't you need more than a litre of developer to develop 10 8x10 sheets?

Vaughn
17-Dec-2010, 11:56
Wouldn't you need more than a litre of developer to develop 10 8x10 sheets?

Depends on the strength of the developer. I use Ilford PQ Universal Developer, which according to Ilford a liter can process 10 sheets of 8x10 film at 1:9 (but only 5 sheets at 1:19).

Vaughn

Jim Michael
17-Dec-2010, 11:58
That could be a minimum required. Maybe we'll find out.


Wouldn't you need more than a litre of developer to develop 10 8x10 sheets?

Jay DeFehr
17-Dec-2010, 12:32
Jim,

I've invented a system for developing multiple sheets of film in minimal solution volumes in daylight with intermittent agitation. I'm still working out a few details, and I don't know if it would be worthwhile to develop and market the system, with the continuing decline of sheet film users. I have questions about versatility vs simplicity/economy. For instance, the number of sheets to be processed. Theoretically, my system could process any number of sheets, but the more sheets it accommodates, the less elegant it is for fewer sheets. I think 10 sheet capacity is a good compromise, since I rarely have more than 10 sheets to be given the same processing at any one time. Would it be better to make one system that can accommodate all formats up to its maximum size, or to make separate systems for each format? Versatility always compromises simplicity. Then there's automation. Automation improves consistency, but compromises simplicity and economy. Would a cheap manual system be preferable to a more expensive automated system? For me, it probably would. Given the current conditions, I think it makes more sense to keep it simple and economical. Any thoughts?

Jay DeFehr
17-Dec-2010, 12:37
Wouldn't you need more than a litre of developer to develop 10 8x10 sheets?

That's another question. I tend to think in terms of my own needs, which means 510-Pyro, which means 100ml/8x10 sheet at 1:100 dilution. I think D-76 and Xtol would also work if used at full strength. It would be easy to add capacity, but that compromises efficiency. Then again, intermittent agitation is ideal for dilute developers, so that has to be considered, too. A lot of questions.

Vaughn
17-Dec-2010, 12:42
For me, 10 sheets would be excessive 95% of the time. My devlopement times are all over the place, so I usually would not do that many at a time. Those who photograph in more consistent light and for only one process (ie Silver gelatin, etc) might benefit from being able to do so many negs at one time.

Multiple formats -- perhaps a model that can do 4x5 to 8x10, and another for 8x10 to 11x14 (7x17, too?).

Jim Michael
17-Dec-2010, 13:16
Jay,

Capability to run 6 to 10 sheets at once would be optimum for me. I would probably rather own one of each for 4x5 & 8x10 if the design is simpler. Barring programmability of the agitation sequence, probably too many variations on that to make everyone happy?

Jay DeFehr
17-Dec-2010, 18:10
Thanks for the feedback, gentlemen. I've been using my prototypes manually, and thinking about ways to automate. I suffer Rube Goldberg's disease, and have to make a conscious effort to pursue simplicity. It's funny to see how my ideas evolve, and how little the finished products resemble the original ideas. Agitation is fairly simple to automate, but filling and draining are much more complicated, requiring pumps, valves, etc., and all the attendant maintenance and cleaning issues, and the added expense would be significant. I think I'll concentrate on making the manual system as good as I can make it, for now.

Dave Jeffery
17-Dec-2010, 21:49
Hi Jay,

I was also in the process of designing a cheap film developer a while back and then I saw that Samy's Camera in Santa Barbara processed E-6 4x5 sheets of film for $1.70 each so I stopped developing the system (B+W is $2.50 per sheet) http://www.samys805.com/film-processing/

Samy's is great and if you decide to use them make sure and fill out the printable order sheet provided on the site as there are a lot of people working there and that is what works best.

Small controllers, belts and pulleys that have been designed for robotics allow reasonably priced film development systems to be designed but a lot of time is needed to build them. The small robotics belts and pulleys are not too expensive.

One design I worked on would use individual tubes that loaded into a square aluminum frame with small bearings and a drive system that was likened to a hot dog roller cart. The tube supports were mounted onto shafts on bearings on both sides of the frame. The bearings and shafts on one side were stationary with small belt pulley on the end of each shaft which would be driven by a long robotics belt connected to a DC motor controlled by and Arduino robotics controller which is progammable. The tube supports on the shafts on the other side were spring loaded to allow for easy removal of the tubes. A simple pin and groove keyway on the drive end turned the tubes. The Arduino controller allows the speed, direction and timing of the drive motor to be controlled.
This was good for procseeing tubes at various times as the tubes could easily be removed individually. This aluminum frame with the tubes would sit in a temperature controlled water bath.

I also wanted to design a drum developer that could handle many sheets of film either 10 or 20 at a time. I ended up designing a system with a shaft that went through a large cooler with two drums mounted on it like a large rotisserie. Where the shaft was to be installed through the side of the cooler a hole would be made and filled with Epoxy fiberglass and the through port would be made light tight with a series of flat flanges on the shaft rotating in a seried of flat chambers to create a light trap. The shaft that the drums turned on inside the cooler would be removable with a spring loaded end like the hot dog style mount. The cooler would be light tight and reinforced with epoxy fiberglass if needed by just laying up a band of fiberglass from one shaft through port around the bottom of the cooler to the other through port. I have made many things quickly, easily and super strong using the heavy thick stitched fiberglass cloth rather than just the ususal thin fiberglass matt that needs many layers laid down.

To make the top of the cooler light tight the top would be removed and the top edge would be cast on mold release on a sheet of glass for a perfectly flat edge. I would cast some matt on the glass first and let is set up a little then cast the cooler onto it using epoxy thickened with microfill to a thick consistency. I might use epoxied pywood for the top of the cooler and any decent rubber seal would work.

The bottom of the inside of the cooler would be formed with a half pipe shape so all the chemicals would have to pool in the bottom. I was going to cut a pipe in half and set it in foam and fiberglass it in to seal it. Two drums would be made with open ended PVC pipes as the film holders and again the cooler would be light tight. Minimizing the amount of clearance between the half pipe bottom of the cooler and the round drums with the PVC pipes would minimize the amount of chemicals needed.

The PVC pipe drums would made by be standing the pipes on end in a larger pipe, and the bottom poured with epoxy to hold the pipes in place and create sealed ends of the drums. This would be done to save the amount of chems needed. A blank round drum could also be made to almost totally displace chemicals so if both drums were not needed to develop a lot of sheets, no chems would be wasted.

The cooler would have a pivot point under the center of it. When the unit was running the cooler would be kept flat. When it was time to drain the chemicals the cooler would tilt and the chems would drain through a vavle into a large PVC pipe with a flat flange and a valve, all of which would be light tight (black hose). The drain valve on the cooler could be controlled by a solenoid vavle and be automatically timed as well as the valves for the inlet of chemicals and the time, direction and speed of the shaft. The chemicals could be added to the cooler by individual hoses through a light tight flapper valves or solenoid vavles. The flat flange on the PVC chemical dump tank would allow it to be pressed sideways against a flat rubber seal for easy removal and the valve between the flange and the main tank would also be light tight.

I hope some of this gives you some ideas for your project and if any of this is of any interest to you please PM me and I can send you the links I have to the robotics controllers, DC motors etc.

Too lazy to proof read or spell check this so sorry for typos etc.

Happy Holidays everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jay DeFehr
18-Dec-2010, 12:37
Thanks Dave, for the description of your design process- very interesting ideas. I started with a drum-in-a-drum design, but have since abandoned it, as I could only elegantly accommodate 4 sheets/ drum (2 on the inside of the outside drum, and two on the outside of the inside drum), and the securing mechanism for the inside drum was too complicated for me. Securing a sheet on the inside of a drum is easy, as the sheet works with you, but it works against you on the outside of a drum, always trying to spring free. I designed a camlock system to secure the sheets on the outside of the inner drum, but it's too complex for me to fabricate. The system is an outer drum, much like a Unicolor drum, or a Jobo print drum, with ridges to secure two sheets in landscape orientation. In the center of the drum is a tube that acts as a spindle for the inner drum, and a filler tube for the solutions, like in a Paterson tank. the inner drum holds two sheets in portrait orientation on the outside, and slides over the spindle tube. The top is a funnel-type lid like the Paterson. In practice, the outer drum is loaded first, and the inner drum is loaded outside of the tank, and inserted onto the spindle, and then the lid goes on and it's light-proof. The assembled tank holds 1 liter of solution for 4 sheets of 8x10. It's not a bad system, but beyond my abilities to fabricate. My prototype is laughable, and cannibalistic, though functional.

My current design is inspired by my failure to fabricate the former design- it's much simpler. The challenge is in making it seal perfectly, so it doesn't leak. Wish me luck!

Brian C. Miller
18-Dec-2010, 15:30
My idea was to fabricate a drum based on the size of a 12-inch bucket lid (http://www.tapplastics.com/shop/product.php?pid=487&). The drum would be constructed based on four discs: a solid disc for the end, and then three discs with holes cut in them for the film. The holes would be routed and smoothed, and maybe covered with weatherstripping tape to protect the film.

Insert film, dump in chems, sealing lid, light blocking lid, flip it over and roll.

Dave Jeffery
19-Dec-2010, 02:00
To develop just 4 sheets of 8x10 my guess is that using BTZS tubes or trays may save time reinventing the wheel and you may start a new post or use the search feature to see what others have done.

I also seem to remember someone mentioning developing a number of 8x10 sheets in PVC tubes rolled around in a large bucket or drum but a lot of chemicals were needed if I remember correctly.

If you love to tinker around and build things...
You could use the hot dog roller style of turning tubes to develop up to about 6 -8 sheets of 8x10 at once with some varied timing among the tubes. The frame of the hot dog roller system would be aluminum angle with the bearings mounted on it and the shafts running through it. Shaft collars would hold the shafts in the bearings. Bushings material is also very cheap but for $2 using a bearing seems best.

It would take some time to make but once it was completed the film processing could be accurately adjusted by the code that runs the Arduino controller. Although perhaps not necessary the water bath temperature could be controlled by a standard thermostat and hot water tank heater element. Use a larger volume of water and have a small aquarium pump to move the water so there are not uneven temperature spikes or drops.

If you are a gearhead that loves to tinker the Arduino board can be used to control all of the development stages for film processing, Here are some of the links that I had researched. The Robot Shop is by far the best website but it is down at the moment. The Pololu High Current Motor driver board is also and integral part of the system. There is a forum where you could get help with programming the controller.

http://www.arduino.cc/

http://www.arduino.cc/playground/Main/DCMotorControl

http://www.skycraftsurplus.com/18hpcapacitorstartacmotor.aspx

http://www.econobelt.com/Q460/RFQ/default.asp?Page=Pg_1-042_1.html

http://www.econobelt.com/Q460/RFQ/default.asp?Page=tbelt/04.htm

10 bearings $20
http://www.vxb.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=bearings&Product_Code=kit715&Category_Code=

H-Bridge controller
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170444742941&rvr_id=&crlp=1_263602_263622&UA=WXI7&GUID=d7c9d4d51270a0e202129872ff0d53a9&itemid=170444742941&ff4=263602_263622

http://www.mcmanis.com/chuck/robotics/tutorial/h-bridge/bjt-use.html

http://www.distel.co.uk/DC_motors_geared.htm

http://www.robotmarketplace.com/products/NPC-02446.html

Solenoid valves
http://www.dan-marc.com/rv-parts-12-volt-fuel-shut-off-valves.html


My idea for tubes to process 8x10 would be large PVC tubes with a typical PVC end cap that pressure fits on one end on but it also has a valve and then a flat flange on the cap.

If you need to pull one tube from the processor just remove it by pushing against the spring loaded shaft on one side and it is out of the hot dog style processor.

Slide the flat flange sideways across a large flat washer in a receptacle designed to force the flange and rubber seal together and you would have a light tight seal to add or dump chemicals by opening the valve. The tube flange receptacle could be designed to flip up or down depending on whether you wanted to add or dump chemicals. All the filling tanks or dump tanks need to be are large sealed PVC pipes with a vavle or flapper style light trap, hard plumbed, or connected by large black hoses to the receptacle flange. As long as everything is light tight it doesn't matter.

If a vacuum occurs in the add or dump system just make simple rubber flap flapper valves to allow air, but not light, in or out of the system where needed.

After all this research once I saw processing for $1.70 a sheet rather than $2.75 a sheet I was done with designing.

The idea with the tubes is to make processing as automated as possible and use the least amount of chemicals possible. It would take a while for the system to pay for itself though.

It sure is a lot of fun to tinker with though!

Good Luck.

Jay DeFehr
19-Dec-2010, 10:13
Dave,

Reinventing the wheel implies the wheel has already been invented. As far as I know, there isn't a system that permits the daylight development of sheet film with minimal solution volumes and intermittent agitation. I don't like BTZS-type tubes for developing more than one sheet of film. Even if all your sheets are to be processed for the same time, it's cumbersome, at best. If some sheets are to get different processing, it's much too hectic and sloppy for me. Tray development has its own problems. It's impossible to automate even the agitation for more than one sheet at a time, it has to be carried out in the dark, there's a risk of scratching negatives in shuffling, or making finger marks from the heat of fingers, and it requires a lot of solution. None of the problems are insurmountable, and many prefer the method, but I'm not among them, and judging by the popularity of automated systems like the Jobo, it seems I'm not alone.

Rotary processing has many advantages, but it has some important disadvantages. Rotary processing promotes rapid oxidation of developer solutions that causes problems for staining developers, and for replenished developers, and encourages aerial fogging, streaking, mottling, and other development defects, and all of these problems are exacerbated by one of rotary processing's chief advantages; the use of minimal solution volumes. For these reasons, rotary processing isn't compatible with all developers, and is best suited to one shot developers.

Another disadvantage of rotary processing is that it fixes an important processing parameter- agitation. Without the ability to adjust agitation frequency, much of the finest development controls are lost. The local exhaustion of developer can enhance local contrast and apparent sharpness, and increase film speed, but continuous agitation effectively eliminates this control.

I won't argue that these controls are as important for large sheet formats as they are for roll film formats, but the principles are the same. So, if one wishes to use replenished Xtol, or other replenished developers, or an acutance developer like Beutler's or Hypercat, or re-use a developer stock, like D-76, rotary processing is not a good option.

The advantages of rotary processing have to do with automation, which confers greater consistency and precision, but not necessarily the highest quality results.

tgtaylor
19-Dec-2010, 10:27
Boy! I'm sure glad that I did all my Jobo purchasing shortly after Jobo announced that they weren't going to manufacture anymore. Although used CPE's were going for $1200 (!), drums, tanks and reels were priced reasonable: 11x14 Print drums were around $20 on eBay, I bought a whole case 2500 series film drums and 2 dozen 2500 reels with extra cogs, lids, etc., all brand new in their original cases for $200. The eBay auction closed without a bid when I saw it and I e-mailed the guy in Philadelphia and made the purchase. I even purchased a new 3010 drum from a local photographic supplier for under $200! I paid $50 on eBay for the 3063 drum for prints up to 20x24 and it arrived in almost mint condition!

I imagine that back then those who were moving from film to digital were unloading their gear for what for them were reasonable prices. The supply was closer to the demand. Now its the opposite and a diminished supply translates into a higher price. At least i think that's the way it works.

Thomas

Liam:
19-Dec-2010, 10:35
I could get something very similar manufactured is SLS for around £300 max, is there a market for this?

Dave Jeffery
20-Dec-2010, 02:40
Oops,
"using BTZS tubes or trays may save time reinventing the wheel"

As I look at creating various designs I constantly ask myself if I am just reinventing the wheel. As I love to tinker around making things and designing things, not reinventing the wheel is a huge mantra for me. I apologize that it sounded like that may have been directed at you.

The Arduino controllers can be programmed and geared for very slow rotation speed and also to easily reverse the direction of the tubes and this can be automated. Rather than just rotating the tubes in one direction a slower sloshing movement could be created with slow speeds and counter rotation. Having to do this manually it would be nearly impossible to be consistent but with code running a controller it may be possible to really fine tune the movements for very predictable results.

No design has yet come to mind for an elegant way to add and dump chemicals from the individual tubes in the hot dog roller design. For the cooler design things are a lot more simple and I think the whole processing sequence could be set up with daylight develpment.

The film holder tubes in the expert drums are not completely flat inside which allows chemicals to get behind the sheets easily as well and I never figured out how to simply make tubes in a similar fashion.

My hopes were to design a system for the good of the photography community that could be built with off the shelf parts, simple tools, and no elaborate machining. I also hoped that a good, easy to build system might spur further refinements by others and if many people started making similar systems somewhat precise developing code for the Arduino could be written based on film type, developer etc.

I don't think companies building film processors will be around for a lot longer but I could be wrong.

Anyway I just posted all this in the hopes that even one or two ideas might help you in some way. It would be great if this could lead to further development of a system that would be easy for a lot of people to adopt once Jobo and other developing equipment continue to disappear.

Good Luck and Happy Holidays!

Dave Jeffery
20-Dec-2010, 03:32
"I could get something very similar manufactured is SLS for around £300 max, is there a market for this?"

If you are seriously interested I would humbly suggest presenting the design you intend to have made in a new thread to see if there are any aspects of the design that might turn potential buyers off, or what could be done better, and then see what kind of interest you generate.

I can easily imagine someone well versed in engineering designing a better system than a Jobo given the recent advances and lower costs of motor controller design, pumps, valves heaters etc. I think people would pay even more for a system that was almost fully automated with easily programmable development code that could be shared by the online community.

If people could buy a system that they could plug in, add chemicals into various holders in measured quantities, load a specific film development software code, tweak the code if they felt like it and then push a button and walk away and get consistent results you could charge $1000.00 US for it easily. If the online community of photographers could collectively create good code for X film and Y developer and share that code online you would have a winner IMHO.

If you also created kits of developing chemicals which could be shipped legally and that made this process even easier and more automated people may abandon other older processors for the new ease of use and highly accurate processor.

Ease of use, easily repeatable and excellent results, ease of chemical handling, constant refining of the code by the online community, ease of use for total beginners, time saved mailing film and waiting for the results are all reasons to purchase a plug and play development system. Cost effective and time effective and better results.

IOW I dunno?

Dave Jeffery
20-Dec-2010, 05:24
Imagine if you could shoot just about any film that you wanted and that you could process the film with a variety of appropriate developers and get near perfect results because a computer controlled film developer was invented and everyone had access to the best processing code possible.

Then imagine that Epson could develop a scanner that scanned a 5"x 5" film area at near 4000 spi, and that perfect focus was easy to set, anti-newton glass was used in the scanning area so dry mounting was easy, no other holders were needed and any size film could be scanned from 35 mm to medium format to any large format size in 5x5 sections. A larger film support area would surround the scanning area.
As the scanner would be smaller it would be cheaper to manufacture than a large flatbed for many reasons and the precision of the support and travel of the motors should be easier and cheaper to accomplish. If the film could just be slid under the scanning area, push a button, and good scans were made that could easily be merged in Photoshop the slight effort needed to reposition the film would make sense.

If it were possible for both of these to be developed at a reasonable cost I wonder what impact it might have on the number of people using film?

Drew Wiley
20-Dec-2010, 10:16
Don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but it would take quite a bit of prototyping to
develop a drum system free or surge uneveness and which would fill and drain evenly
and quickly. What might work well for one process might cause problems for another.
I'm just implying, that unless one is downright lucky, it would take a number of rounds
to do something like this right and not end up with a bad rap. Small volume mfg might
be feasible, or building something for personal use, but recovering the cost of patents
and volume injection moulds would be virtually impossible. Best to get ahold of what
has been already mfg, look at the pros and cons, and go from there. And yes, I do
believe the Jobo concept could be improved upon.

Jay DeFehr
20-Dec-2010, 12:30
Dave,

No apologies necessary. I just meant to clarify my rationale.

Vlad Soare
21-Dec-2010, 02:18
And yes, I do believe the Jobo concept could be improved upon.
Yup. Especially that nasty lid, which can only be taken off by pressure buildup. :)

Jim Cole
21-Dec-2010, 06:53
Yup. Especially that nasty lid, which can only be taken off by pressure buildup. :)

Vlad,
I've found a few seconds with the edge of the lid under hot running water makes the lid very easy to remove without pressure. I quit using pressure after one episode that actually blew a small 1 cm chunk off the rim of the drum.

originalphoto
26-Dec-2010, 07:04
I watched this auction too and felt it was too much to pay. Luckly I went to my darkroom and picked up 3012 drum which I mistakely bought 2 years ago when I thought it was for 4X5 and turned out it was for 9X12. I played with 3012 that I had tried to sell for a year and nobody wanted because nobody shoot 9X12 format in China and suddenly I realized that I could conver it to 8X10. 2 days later I got a really nice 8X10 tank, only drawback is that only can hold 2 films instead of 5 films as 3005 does.

ic-racer
26-Dec-2010, 09:18
I stocked up on 2800 tanks. They fit only on less 8x10 sheet than the expert drum (4 vs 5). I have 3 so I can do 12 sheets with 3 runs without having to dry a tank in between.

domaz
26-Dec-2010, 19:21
I just got done developing some 5x7 in a 2840 print drum. To solve the problem of the 5x7 sheets sliding around everywhere and possibly overlapping I just put four small bits of white electrical tape in strategic places over the ribs. The tape on the ribs is in the four corners of where a 5x7 would "sit". Seemed to work fine of my first run- the tape stayed in place and so did the sheets.

Greg Blank
27-Dec-2010, 16:23
Jobo made clips for the interiors of these drums,you can still obtain them if you know someone nice "me" who knows the part numbers and can provide them to you or a source to get them..


I just got done developing some 5x7 in a 2840 print drum. To solve the problem of the 5x7 sheets sliding around everywhere and possibly overlapping I just put four small bits of white electrical tape in strategic places over the ribs. The tape on the ribs is in the four corners of where a 5x7 would "sit". Seemed to work fine of my first run- the tape stayed in place and so did the sheets.

Brian Ellis
28-Dec-2010, 08:01
Dave,Reinventing the wheel implies the wheel has already been invented. As far as I know, there isn't a system that permits the daylight development of sheet film with minimal solution volumes and intermittent agitation. I don't like BTZS-type tubes for developing more than one sheet of film. Even if all your sheets are to be processed for the same time, it's cumbersome, at best. . . .

There is a system that permits the daylight development of sheet film with minimal solution and intermittent agitation. It's the BTZS tubes that you mention. I'm not arguing with you or saying you're wrong to find it cumbersome. If you find it cumbersome then it's cumbersome for you. I'm just saying that it does exist and many people find that its advantages outweigh whatever cumbersomeness may be involved.

Different times for different films are a simple matter to deal with, just start developing at different times. E.g. if you have three tubes, one with film to be developed for 6 minutes, another for 7 and a third for 7 1/2, start the 6 minute tube first, after a minute has passed put the second tube in, and then 30 seconds later put the third tube in. With the tubes lined up in front of you it's very easy to do, especially since in my experience it's rare to have more than three different times with 6 tubes. And of course if they're all to be processed for the same time then it's a piece of cake.

I'm not trying to convince you to use BTZS tubes, just saying they are a very feasible way of processing film in daylight with minimal chemicals (6 ounces of D76 1-1 requires only 6 ounces of D76 to process 6 sheets of 4x5 film) and intermittent agitation (I rolled them 10 times in one direction, 10 times in the other, to assure consistency).

Matus Kalisky
28-Dec-2010, 08:30
FWIW, I can still get 3010 drum in Germany new for € 365 (~ $ 480) - at www.fotoimpex.de. It is a lot (that's why I never bought one), but I recall it is the same price as in the past (before Jobo quit the market).

Actually - what it wrong with the much cheaper Jobo 2521 (for 6 sheets with the 2059n insert)? I use one and it is all fine ...

Jay DeFehr
28-Dec-2010, 09:12
There is a system that permits the daylight development of sheet film with minimal solution and intermittent agitation. It's the BTZS tubes that you mention. I'm not arguing with you or saying you're wrong to find it cumbersome. If you find it cumbersome then it's cumbersome for you. I'm just saying that it does exist and many people find that its advantages outweigh whatever cumbersomeness may be involved.

Different times for different films are a simple matter to deal with, just start developing at different times. E.g. if you have three tubes, one with film to be developed for 6 minutes, another for 7 and a third for 7 1/2, start the 6 minute tube first, after a minute has passed put the second tube in, and then 30 seconds later put the third tube in. With the tubes lined up in front of you it's very easy to do, especially since in my experience it's rare to have more than three different times with 6 tubes. And of course if they're all to be processed for the same time then it's a piece of cake.

I'm not trying to convince you to use BTZS tubes, just saying they are a very feasible way of processing film in daylight with minimal chemicals (6 ounces of D76 1-1 requires only 6 ounces of D76 to process 6 sheets of 4x5 film) and intermittent agitation (I rolled them 10 times in one direction, 10 times in the other, to assure consistency).

Brian, I don't consider 1.5 liters/ 8x10 sheet, minimal solution volume. My system uses about 1/10 that volume.


Different times for different films are a simple matter to deal with, just start developing at different times. E.g. if you have three tubes, one with film to be developed for 6 minutes, another for 7 and a third for 7 1/2, start the 6 minute tube first, after a minute has passed put the second tube in, and then 30 seconds later put the third tube in.

OK, I have my first tube in, and I'm agitating for 30 seconds, then I put the second tube in and agitate for thirty seconds. then it's time to put the third tube in , and it's also time to agitate the first tube again. So I put the third tube in while agitating the first tube for ten seconds, and then continue to agitate the third tube for the remainder of 30 seconds. Where am I? Ok, 1:30 have elapsed, tube 1 has been developing for 1:30, tube 2 for 1:00, and tube 3 for :30. In 30 seconds I'l need to agitate tubes 1 and 2, and 30 seconds after that I'll need to agitate tube 2, and repeat until the time has elapsed. That's three tubes conveniently spaced at 30 second intervals, and for me, far too cumbersome. Imagine the above scenario using agitation at 5 seconds per 30 seconds, or 5 seconds per 15 seconds, as Hutchings recommends in his book. It's just not for me. I prefer simple, meditative experience. I like to relax and think about the images I'm processing, and imagine the progress of development with each agitation cycle. All that multitasking is too clever for me.

jeroldharter
28-Dec-2010, 09:41
Jay,

That is not how BTZS tubes work. You agitate all of them all of the time. If you are doing a run of 6 4x5 tubes, then you have two options: start the tube with the longest development time first, and then add the subsequent tubes at the proper time so that they all end together; or start all of the tubes at the same time and pull each tube for the stop bath at its required time. I prefer the latter method.

For 8x10 tubes, 2 tubes at a time is my limit.

As I recall, 4x5 tubes use 2 oz and 8x10 tubes use 8 oz of working solution. Not much different than Jobo expert tubes.

I have gotten away from BTZS tubes in favor of Jobo, mostly because Jobo is faster for larger numbers of sheet film. For 4x5, I have 12 BTZS tubes, but to process 24 sheets requires the rinsing and drying of the twelve tubes plus 24 caps which is a nuisance. With Jobo, I can do 20 sheets with 2 drums no problem. I have simplified my BTZS exposure and development to SBR 5,6,7,8,9 with standard development times.

But BTZS is much cheaper, probably better for someone who does not use large volumes of film, and who wants to try different developers. BTZS tubes are easier for testing different materials also.

onnect17
28-Dec-2010, 13:00
A Jobo 3006 just got listed in the "For Sale" forum.

Brian Ellis
28-Dec-2010, 23:04
Brian, I don't consider 1.5 liters/ 8x10 sheet, minimal solution volume. My system uses about 1/10 that volume.



OK, I have my first tube in, and I'm agitating for 30 seconds, then I put the second tube in and agitate for thirty seconds. then it's time to put the third tube in , and it's also time to agitate the first tube again. So I put the third tube in while agitating the first tube for ten seconds, and then continue to agitate the third tube for the remainder of 30 seconds. Where am I? Ok, 1:30 have elapsed, tube 1 has been developing for 1:30, tube 2 for 1:00, and tube 3 for :30. In 30 seconds I'l need to agitate tubes 1 and 2, and 30 seconds after that I'll need to agitate tube 2, and repeat until the time has elapsed. That's three tubes conveniently spaced at 30 second intervals, and for me, far too cumbersome. Imagine the above scenario using agitation at 5 seconds per 30 seconds, or 5 seconds per 15 seconds, as Hutchings recommends in his book. It's just not for me. I prefer simple, meditative experience. I like to relax and think about the images I'm processing, and imagine the progress of development with each agitation cycle. All that multitasking is too clever for me.



1.5 liters per 8x10 sheet? Where do you get that? I said one ounce per tube, 6 tubes at a time, = 6 ounces of stock solution for 6 sheets of 4x5 with D76 1-1. I don't remember how much stock solution I used for 8x10 but it was nothing like 1.5 liters per sheet, it was probably more like 4 ounces per sheet.

I use constant agitation. The tubes lie horizontal in a water jacket. I roll my hand across them 10 times from left to right, then 10 times in the other direction, back and forth throughout the process (there's nothing magic about 10 times, it's just easy to remember, it could be fewer or more, constant or intermittent, I just found 10 times in each direction easy to remember and do). So I don't have to worry about agitating each tube for 5 seconds every 30 seconds or anything like what you're describing as Hutchins' method. I was taught that the specific method of agitation isn't critical, that the important thing is to be consistent with whatever method you choose.

If I had three sheets of film, one to be processed for 7 minutes, another for 6, and the third for 5 1/2, I'd set the timer for 7 minutes and put the first tube (the 7 minute tube) in the water jacket and roll it. When a minute elapsed I drop the second tube (the six minute tube) in and keep rolling, now with two tubes. When another 30 seconds has elapsed I put the third tube in (the 5 1/2 minute tube) and continue until 7 minutes have elapsed, at which time I take them out and put them in the stop bath. It's very simple. And having three different times in one run is very unusual and is as complicated as it gets. Usually I'll have enough Ns, minuses, and pluses that each batch of six sheets can be processed for the same amount of time except maybe the last batch or two.

If you find that kind of system cumbersome that's certainly fine. As I said, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to use the tubes or any particular system. For me the combination of low cost (relative to a Jobo system), little space (ditto), minimal chemical usage, and ability to process for different times in the same run is hard to beat but if you or anyone else disagrees that's certainly o.k.

Jay DeFehr
28-Dec-2010, 23:41
Jerold and Brian,

I've been referring to intermittent agitation. For intermittent agitation, the film must be completely covered with solution during the rest periods. As far as I know, no system exists that permits the daylight development of sheet film, using minimal solution volumes with intermittent agitation. There are several options for continuous agitation. For what it's worth, I have several BTZS-type tubes, and have used them many times, I just don't like them for developing more than one sheet at a time, and for that, a Paterson tank works better. I know others use them and like them, and I'm not suggesting they're wrong; I'm just relating my personal impressions of the system.

Brian C. Miller
29-Dec-2010, 01:15
Jay, the only system that I know of which used a minimum of chems was Polaroid. The guy working on the New 55 project (http://new55project.blogspot.com/) mentions using monobath/reagent with Efke 25, but I haven't seen anything about making the monobath.

A device for minimal chemical development would be a two-tube system. The outer tube holds the film and chemicals. The inner tube is there just to take up space, and might be part of the lid. So it would be like a BTZS tube, but with another tube to take up space. There would be enough room so that when the tube is inverted, all the chemicals flow into the cap. Then when it is placed upright, the film is submerged.

Add a chemical trap to the cap, and, voila! There you have it, intermittent agitation in daylight, and the film is processed in total darkness the whole time.

The next solution would be based on the Fuji "Darkless" system, if you follow the links on the New 55 blog. The chemicals are wicked up by capilary action, so for sheet film this means that another sheet would be placed against the sheet you want to develop, and the sheets are pulled apart and placed together again to wick up a new set of fresh chems.

Dirk Rösler
29-Dec-2010, 03:05
I use a 24xx type paper drum with extension, does 4 sheets 8x10. Cost <$50… worked for 5x7 too

jvuokko
29-Dec-2010, 03:18
I made cheap processor (or roller with water bath). One option was to go and use Arduino controller with servo as it would have given a lot of options for agitation..

But I followed the path of an older technique so there is only simple electric motor that rotates the main axle and very simple controller (not designed by me) that switches the direction of rotation and controls the duration of rotation per on direction.

It's was intented to be really cheap and it actually is. The electric motor was the pricey one - I bought new for a 15 euro (ca $20). The plastic box was almost free, as the axles etc.

It works and accepts all kind of drums.
My current worry is only a little slow rotation speed. But if it will cause problems, I will probably built evolution model with a bit more finished look, water heater (or/and cooler) and faster rotation speeds :)

Some videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jY5oe9ULjQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb79ATjqNQo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suQTE3wx_Jk

Matus Kalisky
29-Dec-2010, 05:12
Jukka - that is a great design indeed! How much do you charge to make one like that?

Jay DeFehr
29-Dec-2010, 11:40
Jay, the only system that I know of which used a minimum of chems was Polaroid. The guy working on the New 55 project (http://new55project.blogspot.com/) mentions using monobath/reagent with Efke 25, but I haven't seen anything about making the monobath.

A device for minimal chemical development would be a two-tube system. The outer tube holds the film and chemicals. The inner tube is there just to take up space, and might be part of the lid. So it would be like a BTZS tube, but with another tube to take up space. There would be enough room so that when the tube is inverted, all the chemicals flow into the cap. Then when it is placed upright, the film is submerged.

Add a chemical trap to the cap, and, voila! There you have it, intermittent agitation in daylight, and the film is processed in total darkness the whole time.

The next solution would be based on the Fuji "Darkless" system, if you follow the links on the New 55 blog. The chemicals are wicked up by capilary action, so for sheet film this means that another sheet would be placed against the sheet you want to develop, and the sheets are pulled apart and placed together again to wick up a new set of fresh chems.

Brian,

I described my drum-in-a-drum system in a previous post. My new system is different. I'm not interested in a monobath system, or a capillary system; just intermittent agitation of standard developers with minimal solution volumes.

Brian C. Miller
29-Dec-2010, 14:13
Oh, right, post #41 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=662318&postcount=41). Complex system, for many sheets. I'm suggesting an extension of the BTZS tubes concept. One sheet per tube, invert it and then set it back down upright. Just an inner tube for the BTSZ tubes. No, not that inner tube, and anyways, it's cold outside! ;)

Sure, the whole thing could be automated, but I think that the guys who need that automation are either using dip-n-dunk or already have a Jobo minlab or equivalent. The automation would be pretty simple just something to rotate the tubes on-axis every X seconds.

Jay DeFehr
29-Dec-2010, 16:54
Brian,

Yes, a simple tube with a volume filler works for one sheet of film. That was my first prototype, and it works fine. If anyone is thinking of building one, be sure to make the inner drum shorter than the outer one to ease unloading. It's easy to fabricate and is a real improvement over the BTZS-type tubes. An insert can also be made for Paterson tanks, that slides over the filler tube, takes up tank volume, and acts as a divider to develop 2 sheets at a time. I've been through all these stages of evolution, ending with the 4 sheet model I described earlier. As a design, it's fine, though too complicated for me to fabricate at home, and limited to 4 sheets. My new design is much better, and far simpler.