Vertical tank for stand developing 8x10?

[Mark Sawyer]

As background, I've been stand developing 8x10 film horizontally in a tray in HC-110 for many years with excellent results. However, I'm finding the newer Arista film offerings (especially the new 400 speed 8x10) respond very poorly to my old techniques, (extremely large grain, development artifacts, etc.).

So I'm considering moving to a pyro developer, still with the stand technique. I've read that film must remain vertical during pyro stand development to avoid, and was wondering what tank (or other option) people are using for the development phase?

Thanks muchly!

[cdholden]

I can't speak to the compatibility between pyro developers and stainless steel, but if you're sticking with HC-110, I've got a set of tanks for vertical use if you're interested.
Both 1 gallon and 3.5 gallon plus hangers.

[Mark Sawyer]

Hi, Chris!

I'm hoping someone has a hanger-less option that uses a bit less developer, maybe a quart at a time. I may have to make my own out of plexiglass, but I'm hoping there's a good ready-made option.

[BetterSense]

Could you share your stand developing technique?

[cdholden]

Hi, Chris!

I'm hoping someone has a hanger-less option that uses a bit less developer, maybe a quart at a time. I may have to make my own out of plexiglass, but I'm hoping there's a good ready-made option.

Wouldn't "hanger-less" mean that the film will be touching a side of the tank at some point in time? That could yield unwanted results due to uneven development.
I could be wrong, but just sharing a thought. I like the hangers, but I prefer trays. I use Rodinal or HC-110, so no problems with stand development yet. I don't have a dedicated darkroom, so stacking trays and moving between bathrooms is much easier than hauling tanks between my first and second floor options.
Even if you make a thinner tank to minimize fluid volume, I would recommend adding a wider base to each, or a stand to hold all of them together, for stability. My gallon tanks aren't near as stable as the 3.5 gallon tanks... even empty.

[EdWorkman]

Someday I'll have an answer
Back when the Xray thing started I struggled with scratches
Jim Fitzgerald uses hangers and early-on contributed toward oddsize hangers for ULF.
I found a way to make hangers from window screen extruded aluminum frame stock
BUT
Questions that remain are - can I load them without putting hamfistprints all over.
The framestock is quite wide compared to standard hangers, so i am sure that traditional agitation will create so much turbulence as to create more than obvious development issues.
Now we get to Extreme Minimal Agitation as described by Sandy King and discussed.
I made tall vertical thin [minimum chemical volume] long tanks for 7x17, my plan that i haven't tested is:
Drop the hangers in and slosh them around well for a short time;
Let them stand for say 30 minutes;
Pull them out, turn over, slosh around;
Stand for the remaining time, upside down.
I'm hoping the initial and midpoint agitations will not result in swirlies and the inversion will even out any "bromide drag".
Not much real help I realize, but I hope it's encouragement at least.

[jp]

If you build something for 8x10 from plastic it could have the slots for film sheets like the 4x5 hp combiplan has. The film doesn't warp and touch things because there is a slight arc to it so it holds its shape.

I just developed some fomapan 100 (which there is a corresponding arista product for) 8x10 in a tray in pyrocat-hd with no artifacts or uneven development. I put 1L of chemical in a 9x11ish patterson tray. That said, I'm not so good at shuffling and would rather not have to be putting hands in the chemicals and don't like gloves, and the amount of time an upsized combiplan tank would save me over one-at-a-time tray developing, I'd gladly waste a little extra developer.

[Lachlan 717]

What about a BTZS 8x10 tube used in reverse (in other words, fill the tube and then put on the empty cap)?

[vinny]

I made skinny tanks out of 1/4"abs. I used pmk and stainless hangers. 1000ml tanks are about an inch wide and hold two hangers comfortably. That's not much pmk at all when u look at how long the bottles will last you. I also made tanks to hold 6 hangers to speed things up. Not sure how to do it w/o hangers.

[mikew]

Hi Mark,

Unfortunately, processing 8x10 film with long periods of "stand" is inherently problematic no matter what developer or process you choose. I made the jump from Rodinal and HC-110 to Pyrocat-P about 5 months ago and after 200+ sheets of film, I still haven't found a processing method that when using minimal, extreme minimal, semi or stand cycles produces even development of large areas of even tonality (to within +/- log .03). And I should qualify that by saying that my tests are done by making a Zone VII exposure of an evenly illuminated surface (within 1/10 stop). So I have had success with subjects without such even tonality.

From my experience, your best bet is to use some version of tube development. I tried all sorts of tank/hanger techniques and all my results were mottled or had surge marks. Hangers are really hard to use with vigorous agitation.

Beyond tanks designed for roll film, there's nothing prefabricated - to my knowledge - available except for real BTZS tubes from the View Camera store. Those tubes are great for traditional developers but I've had problems with the 8x10 tubes and Pyrocat; they have ridges inside which can leave uneven staining marks on the back of the film. So, with the help of some great people on here, I fabricated my own tubes out of 3" ID ABS tube where agitation could be done by either rolling on a table, rolling a bath, inversions or a combo of both. I still haven't managed to perfect minimal to stand-type agitation, but I have managed to use the tubes for Divided Pyrocat development. The results are similar to what you'd get with minimal agitation but you will use more chemistry. (I'd personally rather use more chemistry to get the results I want) I print on VC paper and I don't do any scanning so I actually use Divided Pyrocat to develop to a specific CI as you would with a normal working dilution. But if your work involves scanning, Divided development is an even better technique. And there's tons of info on Divided development around here and elsewhere.

Another point is that if you're looking for the same or better tonal separation and accutance that you had with HC-110, I would imagine that you wouldn't have to use stand development with Pyrocat (or another pyro developer) to get it. You may get better results without having take it that far. Just a thought.

If you need any info on making tubes let me know.

Best of luck!

Mikew

[Mark Sawyer]

Chris ~ If I did hangers, I'd probably just go with a couple of plastic clothes-pins on a rod. But I'd prefer to just drop the film sheets in. A thin tank won't be a problem stability-wise; I could just build a box for it, quite similar to the silver-bath tanks and boxes for wet plate, if you're familiar with those.

Ed ~ I'm putting off the X-ray film issues for at least a little longer; I don't think I want to deal with a double-sided emulsion! I always do complete stand (no agitation), so I never have issues with agitation marks. But thanks for the encouragement; I'll take any I can get!

If it was just for me, I'd just revert to HP5, but as I also teach high school, Arista is the only affordable option. I bought a couple of 50-sheet boxes for the kids, and don't want it to go to waste, and if we sort it out, I'll doubtlessly use it myself too.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Mark,

I have a few ideas (go figure). For stand development of one sheet of film, I think the best option is to use a roll film tank, like a Paterson, Jobo, etc, of appropriate size, with a center column. To take up some of the space, and save chemicals, slip something over the center column; ideally, a hollow plastic cylinder with a center hole that matches the tank's center column, but there are lots of other possibilities.

I have serious reservations about stand development, with any developer. In my experience, the optimum frequency of agitation is always above zero. In other words, some agitation is always better, or at least never worse than no agitation. A few seconds agitation at five minute intervals seems to be a safe minimum that retains all the benefits of stand development, with most developers I've tested. I use something similar for developing X-Ray film in trays, with 510-Pyro. I've developed a lot of film in 510-Pyro with initial agitation, and brief agitation at the 1/2 way point of development, with dilute solutions and 20 minute +/- development times, with excellent results, but my results are just as good when I increase agitation frequency to every 5 minutes. The same is true for Hypercat and GSD-10, though low frequency agitation with Hypercat can result in quite exaggerated edge effects.

So, yes, it's possible to stand develop vertically with pyro, but not necessary, and not a very good risk, considering the trafe-offs. If I was you, I'd try increasing agitation frequency incrementally with your current developer and trays. If you still don't get the results you want, you might try another developer, but stick with your trays, if that's your preferred method. I've never mastered the development of several sheets at a time in one tray, so I only develop one at a time, and use brush agitation. I only use trays for ortho film, and develop under a safelight. For normal pan films, I use tubes, as described above.

[Mark Sawyer]

If you build something for 8x10 from plastic it could have the slots for film sheets like the 4x5 hp combiplan has. The film doesn't warp and touch things because there is a slight arc to it so it holds its shape...

I'm sort of leaning that way, slots or a slightly trapezoidal tank.

In your pyro-tray developing, are you agitating? If horizontal development isn't causing issues in stand development with pyro, perhaps I can just stay with tray development...

[mikew]

What about a BTZS 8x10 tube used in reverse (in other words, fill the tube and then put on the empty cap)?

I tried doing exactly that but it never seemed to work. Aside from the timing issue, pouring the developer into the tube with the film in it prevented even introduction of the emulsion to the developer. Your best bet with this kind of tube would be to presoak your film in a tray, fill up the tube with developer, and then cup the wet film and gently but quickly slide it into the tube, put the cap on and then start agitation with inversions.

[Mark Sawyer]

Could you share your stand developing technique?

The technique is rather simple, about 3/4 of an inch HC-110 developer in an 8x10 tray. Slide it in gently, make sure all four corners are pushed down, and leave it. (I have a light-proof box similar to a paper-safe for the tray.)

I usually have the dilution around "B" or weaker, and develop from 10 to 30 minutes, depending on all the usual variables. This is stronger developer/shorter time than many stand techniques, but it's what has worked for all the other films (til the Arista 400). As with most development methods, the technique is simple, but the choices in using it can be complex...

Hope this answers your question!

[Mark Sawyer]

What about a BTZS 8x10 tube used in reverse (in other words, fill the tube and then put on the empty cap)?

I considered that, but haven't the BTZS tubes become rather scarce and expensive? But it's a design I could buid myself. One more good option... This is the sort of suggestion I'm looking for!

[Mark Sawyer]

I made skinny tanks out of 1/4"abs. I used pmk and stainless hangers. 1000ml tanks are about an inch wide and hold two hangers comfortably. That's not much pmk at all when u look at how long the bottles will last you. I also made tanks to hold 6 hangers to speed things up. Not sure how to do it w/o hangers.

Also a good suggestion and a direction I'm leaning! I'm just not partial to hangers, and going one sheet at a time should let me dispose of them (with the right tank design). It's starting to sound like a "build your own"...

[Mark Sawyer]

Hi Mark,

Unfortunately, processing 8x10 film with long periods of "stand" is inherently problematic no matter what developer or process you choose. I made the jump from Rodinal and HC-110 to Pyrocat-P about 5 months ago and after 200+ sheets of film, I still haven't found a processing method that when using minimal, extreme minimal, semi or stand cycles produces even development of large areas of even tonality (to within +/- log .03). And I should qualify that by saying that my tests are done by making a Zone VII exposure of an evenly illuminated surface (within 1/10 stop). So I have had success with subjects without such even tonality.

From my experience, your best bet is to use some version of tube development. I tried all sorts of tank/hanger techniques and all my results were mottled or had surge marks. Hangers are really hard to use with vigorous agitation.

Beyond tanks designed for roll film, there's nothing prefabricated - to my knowledge - available except for real BTZS tubes from the View Camera store. Those tubes are great for traditional developers but I've had problems with the 8x10 tubes and Pyrocat; they have ridges inside which can leave uneven staining marks on the back of the film. So, with the help of some great people on here, I fabricated my own tubes out of 3" ID ABS tube where agitation could be done by either rolling on a table, rolling a bath, inversions or a combo of both. I still haven't managed to perfect minimal to stand-type agitation, but I have managed to use the tubes for Divided Pyrocat development. The results are similar to what you'd get with minimal agitation but you will use more chemistry. (I'd personally rather use more chemistry to get the results I want) I print on VC paper and I don't do any scanning so I actually use Divided Pyrocat to develop to a specific CI as you would with a normal working dilution. But if your work involves scanning, Divided development is an even better technique. And there's tons of info on Divided development around here and elsewhere.

Another point is that if you're looking for the same or better tonal separation and accutance that you had with HC-110, I would imagine that you wouldn't have to use stand development with Pyrocat (or another pyro developer) to get it. You may get better results without having take it that far. Just a thought.

If you need any info on making tubes let me know.

Best of luck!

Mikew

Hi, Mike! Thanks for all the information. One of the things I like best about stand development is its compensating nature. I've been able to photograph in a fairly dark room with sunlight on the scene outside the window, and get detail in both and a nice tonal scale all the way through. I haven't been able to do that with conventional development methods, even with zone-system exposure/development adjustments. (There, that should get a few flames!) I haven't done the testing for evenness that you've done, but it's never been an issue for me.

I'm not looking to alter my results from what I've been getting from HC-110. I just need to find a developer appropriate to stand development and compatible with this darned Arista 400. (If I hadn't ordered a hundred sheets of it I wouldn't be in this mess! :) But I'm also curious about the pyro developers (I have little experience with them), and this seems like an opportunity to kill two birds, as it were...

[Mark Sawyer]

Hi Mark,

I have a few ideas (go figure). For stand development of one sheet of film, I think the best option is to use a roll film tank, like a Paterson, Jobo, etc, of appropriate size, with a center column. To take up some of the space, and save chemicals, slip something over the center column; ideally, a hollow plastic cylinder with a center hole that matches the tank's center column, but there are lots of other possibilities.

I have serious reservations about stand development, with any developer. In my experience, the optimum frequency of agitation is always above zero. In other words, some agitation is always better, or at least never worse than no agitation. A few seconds agitation at five minute intervals seems to be a safe minimum that retains all the benefits of stand development, with most developers I've tested. I use something similar for developing X-Ray film in trays, with 510-Pyro. I've developed a lot of film in 510-Pyro with initial agitation, and brief agitation at the 1/2 way point of development, with dilute solutions and 20 minute +/- development times, with excellent results, but my results are just as good when I increase agitation frequency to every 5 minutes. The same is true for Hypercat and GSD-10, though low frequency agitation with Hypercat can result in quite exaggerated edge effects.

So, yes, it's possible to stand develop vertically with pyro, but not necessary, and not a very good risk, considering the trafe-offs. If I was you, I'd try increasing agitation frequency incrementally with your current developer and trays. If you still don't get the results you want, you might try another developer, but stick with your trays, if that's your preferred method. I've never mastered the development of several sheets at a time in one tray, so I only develop one at a time, and use brush agitation. I only use trays for ortho film, and develop under a safelight. For normal pan films, I use tubes, as described above.

Hi, Jay!

I have a couple of big Jobo tanks for 4x5, and thought about using them, but I think something designed to the right size would be most efficient, and not that hard to make if there isn't something out there already. I've had good luck with pure stand technique and really like its compensating effect, so I'd like to stay with it, (in my experience, it seems like any agitation reduces the compensating effect). But if I move to a pyro developer, that could all go out the window... We'll see!

It's starting to sound like people are doing stand and semi-stand development in pyro using trays rather than vertical tanks. I'd read that this caused problems, but perhaps that isn't the case. Time to experiment this summer!

BTW, are you developing X-ray film in a tray with periods of non-agitation? It seems like this would leave tray/agitation marks on the film, since the emusion is on both sides.

[Jay DeFehr]

The tube with filler method is versatile, because one can decide how much chemical volume to use, and size the center filler to suit. By "filler", I mean the part that goes on the center column to take up space in the tube. It could be anything from a purpose-built cylinder, to a wrapping of rubber sheeting held by rubber bands. The idea is that it allows one to tailor their tank's capacity to suit one's needs, and enjoy the convenience of a bottom-filling daylight tank. I mean standard roll film tanks for multiple reels of 35mm/120 film.

I do develop X-ray film in trays with low frequency agitation. I put a sheet of glass in the bottom of the tray, which seems to prevent scratching or other development issues. I move the glass with the film when I transfer from one tray to the next. It's easy to handle the glass by the edges without scratching the film, or getting fingerprints on it. The glass from cheap, plastic, front load picture frames works great, because the edges are all rounded.

[jp]

I'm sort of leaning that way, slots or a slightly trapezoidal tank.

In your pyro-tray developing, are you agitating? If horizontal development isn't causing issues in stand development with pyro, perhaps I can just stay with tray development...


I agitate once a minute, either by picking up the film and putting it back in, or lifting a corner or edge of the tray 1/2" and dropping that corner back down. I'm not patient enough to stand in the dark for the time required for tray stand or true minimal agitation development. Right now, I'm using pyrocat-HD, but have also used PMK, xtol, and caffenol-C (not recommendable for 400 speed film).

You also mentioned wanting to get a big range in your 17:36 today post. I think the ability to do this is both a film and developer combination, and you can't get this result from any ol' film. I've gotten some big range with tmax film, but not as big a range with the foma stuff, which really excels in the midtones. No measurements or test procedure to prove this; I leave that to other people and have fun making photos instead. You don't need stand developing to get the benefits of this with PMK and tmax film and I haven't tested pyrocat-hd enough, but it's said to work similar. caffenol-c is quite flexible with compensating ability, but I think it's more apt to develop less evenly than the pyro developers and works better with some agitation techniques than others; I haven't tried all the options with it, and it's not suitable for iso400 use anyways.