View Full Version : FP4 base side anomalies and Jobo 3005
I just processed some Ilford fp4 8x10 sheet film in a Jobo 3005 and the base side is getting some weird drying marks and is riddled with scratches as well. The marks look like some type of effect from liquid being trapped between two smooth surfaces (Jobo wall and base side of film) and causing some type flaw. I presoaked, used xtol, normal stop bath, and normal fixer. Washed for 30 mintues and did a final rinse in distilled water. The same thing happened with HP5 a few years back, so I stuck with Tri-X. Is Ilford's base not all that compatible with the function of the Jobo drums? I never get or got this problem with Kodak. Please chime in. Thanks.
Are you pushing the film all the way down past the lip of the tank? If so, DONT!
I do, but do you think that is what is causing this?
I had some issues like you described (never scratches) when I started in both 3010 and 3005 drums. Leave the film flush with the top surface of the tube. When the film is pushed all the way in, the liquids don't always get behind it to remove the anti-halation layer. Just my two cents. I use 500ml of liquid in the 3005 drum by the way.
I push my film down all the way (as per the Jobo instructions), but if I am vigorous with my pouring out of the water and/or chemicals, the film does end up higher up tube.
So you had the issue with Ilford films? I pushed Tri-X to the bottom of the drums and maybe anti-halation didn't always come out on its own, but never any of these strange almost textured patterns on the base side.
Chauncey Walden
17-Jan-2012, 15:24
I load FP4 into a water filled drum and slide it down to the bottom as Jobo says to do. Put the lid on, gently dump the water out, start the rotation and add the pre wash water. No problems.
Yeah I tried putting the film as you described with drum full of water after having soaking for a few in a tray and not a whole lot of difference, the base side is still all funky. I sincerely never had these particular issues with Kodak's base side....
So some of the stuff from the base side is showing through on the scans and even with emulsion side down I am getting newton rings. Is this how Ilford films are in general? I am not trying to say anything negative about their films, but this is really frustrating.
johnielvis
17-Jan-2012, 20:33
yeah...same problems for me--not jobo, but tube nonetheless....
scratches and the dye don't come off--AND it takes the pattern of whats behind it---
you can eliminate a lot of the dye by doing a pre-soak with a LOT of water---more water gives pressure to get behind the film to dissolve the layer
I can't seem to every get the larger ilford films to work without getting marks of some kind because that base appears to need the exact same water treatment all over to make it homogeneous appearance---when I used ilford with screens, the screens imprinted themselves---even if you do the pre-soak, you'll see that you'll get the drum rib marks on the back of the film too--these don't show up when you do prints, but I'm doing reversals--so I'm always looking right at the film and I notice everything
this is even worse with 11x14 sheets--the bigger the sheets- the harder it is to get water in back to wash out the dye layer--also the bigger the sheets, the bigger the forces on the sheet of film---this causes more scratching action....
I've mentioned this in a thread myself, but those that develop ilford 4x5 in trays told me that I didn't know what I was talking about...
anyways--I only use kodak--never a problem with kodak like the ilford.
try that pre-soak...fill the drum UP with water ,,,, you'll be amazed at the amount of dye that comes out....really pretty colors too sometimes
RPNugent
18-Jan-2012, 06:40
Back when JOBO had real support people in Michigan I called them about this very problem. They were very specific about NOT pushing the film all the way to the bottom of my 3010 and the problem was solved.
Interesting and useful input, Bob, thanks. I do not push 5x7 to the bottom of the 3005 -- I figure my fingers aren't long enough to fish them out!
But I will worry less about pushing 8x10 to the bottom -- even tho I have no problems with FP4 in the 3005.
Yeah it didn't quite solve my problem doing it that way. I can't stress how careful I am with the film during processing, after all that is why I use a Jobo. The Ilford guy (Simon) said to send him a sheet and to contact them. I appreciate that quite a bit, however the new work I am doing is so subtle that it requires an almost flawless negative. Figuring this out will be huge for me so that my transition from Kodak to Ilford will be more seamless and I focus on making work.
Jan Pedersen
18-Jan-2012, 17:57
Just a thought, Is it possible that ilford's sheet film need to "mature" or cure a bit before the back is strong enough for jobo processing?
I have as i posted over on APUG had the exact same problems as Jordan but i just checked the last couple of FP4+ that i shot and processed in December and they show no signs of the problem. This batch of film have now been in my freezer and fridge for at least a year.
The problems that i had earlier was perhaps with more fresh film i am not sure but maybe something to experimet with.
johnielvis
18-Jan-2012, 19:05
wow! now THERE's something that wasn't expected.....
it just may be---there is something on the back that for sure reacts with bleach---I do know that after the developer is done with it, SOME of the dye will come out but not all of it---maybe the "aged" film is a bit stiffer and allows a more even development because it doesn't push against the tube as much???? there's the film stiffness thing that was brought up on apug posts as well---as I've noticed, other people have noticed that kodak film is stiffer than ilford film--so that is something there to that too maybe.
you have to run the tube with liquid in it and film in it and look inside while its going...I did this with a plastic bag over the end one time---it's an eye-opener--you see that the flow regime is nothing like what you'd imagine---there is very little pooling on the bottom--most of the flow occurs by the liquid being picked up on the rolling sides and "raining down" on the emulsion side.
when I saw that I knew that there would be all kinds of problems getting liquid behind the sheets---you'd need ribs that are circumferential instead of axial...the axial ribs designed to get liquid back there actually hinder the distribution of liquid---EXCEPT at VERY SLOW rotational speeds--i.e. hand SLOW rotation--no motor base.
I"m going to see if I can slow down my roller bases to the point where the liquid "stays in the trough instead of "raining down"---these are AC motors though--anybody have any ideas on how to slow them down EASILY---is there like a small duty VFD inverter drive that's available for this sort of application?--I'd like something that plugs in to the wall and the motor drive plugs into that---you know...I don't want to start building a vfd
Sal Santamaura
18-Jan-2012, 20:51
...same problems for me--not jobo, but tube nonetheless...You're referring to print drums which, unlike Jobo Expert drums, were not designed to get chemicals to the base side of prints or film. Without question the wrong tools for this job.
...all kinds of problems getting liquid behind the sheets---you'd need ribs that are circumferential instead of axial...the axial ribs designed to get liquid back there actually hinder the distribution of liquid...In the Jobo 3005 Expert drum that Jordan is using, which is designed to process sheet film, there are no ribs. Its five chambers are not cylindrical; they're "fat-waisted," i.e. the reverse of an hourglass. Assembled by hand from sheet stock to achieve that shape, the 3005 chambers are configured so they do permit liquids to reach the base side of film. Axial ribs found in the print drums you use were included to separate smaller prints from each other during processing. Those ribs have nothing to do with chemistry reaching the back of prints; there's no need for it to do so.
Although all current first-tier quality 8x10 black and white sheet films are coated on a 7-mil polyester base, significant differences exist between them in terms of flexibility. In my experience, Kodak 320TXP is much more rigid than the others, with TMX, TMY-2 and Delta 100 close behind. FP4 Plus is somewhat more flexible, HP5 Plus more flexible yet and Acros the most flexible of all. This can affect how they "hug" the individual chambers of a 3005 during rotary processing.
Rotation speed (in combination with film flexibility) can affect how much sheets of film will shift around in the chambers. The optimum speed for black and white film in an Expert Drum, when using non-pyro developers, is around 45 rpm. Jobo documentation for the CPA/CPP processors was never updated when motor upgrades rendered it obsolete. Consequently, some users set their processor controls to "4," thereby running at an excessively high rotation speed. This can cause film to be batted about wildly, potentially resulting in base damage if there are any rough spots -- even minor ones -- in the chamber.
It will be very interesting to read what Jordan and Ilford discover about the issues he has been having. I'm especially curious to find out whether a manufacturing defect, rotation speed error or other development protocol misstep was to blame.
I always use speed 4 and with pyro and don't have any issues. What speed is 45rpm on a jobo cpp2? and what speed is ideal for pyro developers?
johnielvis
19-Jan-2012, 02:58
look guys--the future of film processing looks like it's going to be home processing using non-kodak film and not using the jobo, but what is available to most--which is non-jobo tubes and home-made tubes.
jobo are not available and the ones that are out there will stop working because they cannot be maintained because parts are not available. So any jobo that is out there cannot be maintained to perform as designed since they can't be maintained as designed. These are the sad FACTS.
The smart person is planning for a future of home processing using non-kodak products and using non-jobo.
why buy a jobo if you know that once it breaks you're in a heap of trouble? better to use the $$$$ to hoard up on the kodak stuff to use it with what you KNOW will be available or what is more easily home-made.
the future is the lowest tech solutions which includes the simplest, most resilient products---this rules OUT the jobo.
does anyone really expect there to be ANY reliable jobo units running to 100% factory spec in 5 years????? 10 years????? 15years?????
anyways I don't---and I'm not going to invest in a defunct system.
the future is to figure out how to use what is most readily available.
rdenney
19-Jan-2012, 07:24
why buy a jobo if you know that once it breaks you're in a heap of trouble? better to use the $$$$ to hoard up on the kodak stuff to use it with what you KNOW will be available or what is more easily home-made.
the future is the lowest tech solutions which includes the simplest, most resilient products---this rules OUT the jobo.
does anyone really expect there to be ANY reliable jobo units running to 100% factory spec in 5 years????? 10 years????? 15years?????
You're talking about Jobo processors, I assume. Who needs a processor, other than for convenience? What is there in a tank to go bad? Maybe the lid starts to drip a bit. What else? I still have tanks I bought in the 70's, and if I still processed roll film myself, they would work fine.
But even if Jobo is defunct, what's wrong with using their stuff until it breaks, and then thinking of something else?
There are always BTZS tubes. And there are always trays. But I'll use the best tools available that I can afford, as long as they are available.
You're going to say I h$e you:), but you talk as if you only have the opportunity to learn something once in your life. Why should you be so lucky? My life, both vocational and avocational, has been a continuous succession of technology replacements and learning.
Rick "rebuilding a B&W negative processing capability with unfamiliar technologies" Denney
Sal Santamaura
19-Jan-2012, 10:01
I always use speed 4 and with pyro and don't have any issues. What speed is 45rpm on a jobo cpp2? and what speed is ideal for pyro developers?The speed dial setting that produces 45 rpm depends on which motor your CPA-2/CPP-2 has. There were three versions; processor serial number as well as whether or not a particular processor's motor has been upgraded are the determinants.
I've never used a pyro developer in an Expert drum, but those who have generally say the slowest rotation speed possible is best. Probably to minimize oxidation.
Sal Santamaura
19-Jan-2012, 10:27
...jobo are not available and the ones that are out there will stop working because they cannot be maintained because parts are not available. So any jobo that is out there cannot be maintained to perform as designed since they can't be maintained as designed...All things will break, but Jobo does still supply replacement parts. Used CPA/CPP/Autolab processors are obtainable on the used market. And, Jobo still manufactures and sells 3005 Expert drums brand new. See this post from yesterday for someone who purchased one:
http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1288169
...The smart person is planning for a future of home processing using non-kodak products and using non-jobo...I've always valued planning ahead. While I respect, admire, use and defend Ilford's top-quality products, far in the future there will be a time when even Ilford joins Kodak in the history books. Therefore, back in 2005, I stockpiled many thousands of sheets of Azo paper. I also purchased two Jobo processors, a CPA-2 and CPP-2, so as to have a spare for when parts eventually do become unavailable, along with a collection of tanks and Expert drums. Finally, I have obtained and placed in our freezer a large quantity of 320TXP sheet film. Taken together, these are my "doomsday" supplies. I don't anticipate needing to use them for many, many years.
...does anyone really expect there to be ANY reliable jobo units running to 100% factory spec in 5 years????? 10 years????? 15years?????...I do. As with all electromechanical equipment, the probability of this happening is dependent on carefulness and intensity of use as well as availability of repair parts. Expert drums, if properly handled, should not have any problem lasting many times as long as 15 years. If the processor fails, see this thread for a possible alternative that would keep Jobo drums and tanks usable:
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/69396-my-jobos-their-last-legs.html
Finally, if one wants to avoid rotary processing entirely, I'd set my sights on one of these systems:
http://www.alistairinglis.com/new_page_1.htm
johnielvis
19-Jan-2012, 17:32
rdenny---I know....a tank is the best probably but the chemical volume is prohibitive...I don'tt want to buy and maintain a dip and dunk.....that would be the cadillac solution, but I want something that can be used at home....there has to be some way to get these drums to work properly--it must be drums I'm thinking---same as a tray but just curled...but trays do scratch too...I want something foolproof, you know....I'll find a solution--I'm just hoping I find people who are just as dissatisfied as me and we can bouce ideas off each other to get it going....oh and I will continue to learn as you do...yes I will---but I don't want to rely on technology--I want to rely on simplicity and genius-type solutions---something simple that anybody can make---a "home contrivance" type of thing....OR...maybe technology will provide the MATERIALS which will allow a nicer, simpler, more elegant solution....THAT is where I'll allow technology...materials...but NOT in mechanization....no way....I hate the contraptions which Is why I hate the jobo...I want an ak47 that shoots all the time, not some snooty lugar that jams, you know?
to the sal santorum dude--I do learn and I've learned that jobo aint the future for me or the world---it is for you--good keep it Idon't want it. I'm gonna find me something better---now go to bed with your jobo and stop the trolling....you should maybe get a job or something
Sal Santamaura
19-Jan-2012, 21:57
...to the sal santorum dude--I do learn and I've learned that jobo aint the future for me or the world---it is for you--good keep it Idon't want it. I'm gonna find me something better---now go to bed with your jobo and stop the trolling...Calling me a troll is one thing; referring to me as "santorum" is a real insult. :D
Apparently you are unwilling to look at what I wrote one post up:
...Finally, if one wants to avoid rotary processing entirely, I'd set my sights on one of these systems:
http://www.alistairinglis.com/new_page_1.htmThat's not a Jobo. Not even rotary of any kind. It's a commercially available, daylight, gas-burst system from Alistair Inglis. Probably worth your effort to investigate.
patrickjames
19-Jan-2012, 23:39
I have put a lot of HP5 through a 3010 drum without any of the problems you mention. The negs come out very clean. You may want to slow down your drum rotation. That may eliminate some of the shifting it appears you have going on. I can't think of any other reason for the scratches you are getting.
I hope you can find a solution to the problem. I had sporadic problems with Pyrocat until I finally just decided that it wasn't worth the hassle and went back to Rodinal so I know how you feel.
johnielvis
20-Jan-2012, 03:17
large tanks with hangers that take huge amounts of chemistry are out of the questions...I want home apartment processing
if I wanted to use the machine I'd hire a lab.
my process needs one-shot---fresh developer every time....can't fill a tank with gallons every time...too wasteful....the equipment is too big....
I'd hire a lab if I wanted that...but I don't want to hire a lab..I want HOME processing...you take it down so you can take a shower kind of stuff...just like everyone else wants.
I have tried tanks....too much chemicals....like I said i've tried it ALL...I want something NEW..please stop suggesting what's already out there...it don't work for me
johnielvis
21-Jan-2012, 11:02
GOTIT
....see the other thread on processing equipment....
I figureed out you need 100% contact with the developing/rinse fluid to get off the anit-halation layer----this means S L O W rotation to ensure liquid stays at the bottom of the tube trough AND sufficient chemicals to submerge the part of the film on the bottom....
So--advise using more developer if you don't have enough in there for full contact...if you DO, then you're spinning it too fast.....
I ran one of these opened up and saw what was going on in there.....
see the other thread under processing equpment....
I don't know how the jobos work with the multi chamber though but suffice it to say...the film MUST get full ly submerged to evenly remove the antihalation dyes/backing----this is the result of experimentation and my observations of the moving rolling drum with liquid and film it.
Jw35180
25-Feb-2019, 17:48
So you had the issue with Ilford films? I pushed Tri-X to the bottom of the drums and maybe anti-halation didn't always come out on its own, but never any of these strange almost textured patterns on the base side.
Hello Jordan,
I just started having this issue with fp4 using the jobo 3010. Did you ever resolve the problem
Thx
Jim
ic-racer
25-Feb-2019, 17:51
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?122184-Marks-when-Using-Jobo-Print-Drums-for-B-amp-W-negatives-Possible-causes-and-solutions&highlight=jobo+marks
No processing related marks since 2015 when I figured that out.
Jw35180
26-Feb-2019, 17:42
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?122184-Marks-when-Using-Jobo-Print-Drums-for-B-amp-W-negatives-Possible-causes-and-solutions&highlight=jobo+marks
No processing related marks since 2015 when I figured that out.
Thx, good work.
I’ve run multiple tests, interestingly, eliminating the prewash appears to have fixed my problem. I’ve run through 10 development cycles, half with and half without the prewash. In all cases the batches without the prewash didn’t have the problem. If I develop Tri-x with or without a prewash I’ve never had a problem. I’ve only had the issue with fp4 and delta, never tri-x or tmax. I talked to a photographer that tray developes his film, he has noted a change in the fp4 film base. Nothing equivalent to the marks associated with the jobo. But the base was duller, less shiny. I do think your analysis maybe correct, but my success by foregoing the prewash is a puzzle. Going forward, I plan to use tri-x. All of this seems to suggest an issue with fp4. My tests are limited but they do seem to be repeatable
I have succesfully processed hundreds of FP4+ rolfilms in a JOBO tank since 1978. Never had any issues. A few films that I processed lately show some few very thin irregular scratches in the emulsion. This puzzles me because these defects are definitely not from my own handling.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.