View Full Version : MOD54 film processing "report"
Well like some I've wondered about the MOD54. I finally bought one. Loading the film does take some practice. After fiddled with it for about 15 minutes I had the process down. I loaded 6 sheets in my film bag. I would have been much easier if I had a tent or waited until dark to load it, but I could not wait. After loading and placing the lid the processing of the film was EXTREMELY easy. Filling and dumping the chemicals was fast and easy. On a previous thread someone was concerned it the frame would leave a portion of the film undeveloped. I did not see ANY evidence of this on any of the sheets. The developement was even. Over all I think its a fine product that enabled me to process my own 4x5 sheets at home with minimal hasle. I give it two thumbs up or 5 of 5 stars. It was also my first time to use Pyro HD. I've not tested my film speed or developement times with Pyro, but it looks OK for my first time:cool: Two images one stop difference
Here is scan of the film at 720 with Epson V750
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/ataim_1991/Oklahoma%202010/img225.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/ataim_1991/Oklahoma%202010/img226.jpg
Jay DeFehr
3-Apr-2012, 19:29
Very nice, Paul!
Louie Devincentis
6-Apr-2012, 08:57
Thanks Ataim for your input on the MOD54, I too have been interested in this product. Since I don't have anything to process my 4x5 film I think I will try this.
Cheers.
Louie
Kirk Gittings
6-Apr-2012, 09:31
On a previous thread someone was concerned it the frame would leave a portion of the film undeveloped. I did not see ANY evidence of this on any of the sheets. The developement was even.
That image is way to visually busy to accurately judge even development. Try photographing something even like a blank wall-way out of focus- and place it on middle grey and do a test. What you want to know is what will happen if you ever photograph a scene with allot of say blank sky and the blank wall test will tell you that whereas the image above will not.
David Brunell
6-Apr-2012, 12:09
Subscribed...I would like to hear more input on this product; looks like it may be a good alternative.
tnabbott
6-Apr-2012, 18:00
I have one and have been using it for some time. The first time loading it was a little slow, but I'm used to it now and love it. Absolutely great product!
I just used my MOD54 for the first time. Even development, no scratches. A bit of a chore to load the film, but like most things in life, it gets easier with practice. It does use a lot of chemistry (1-litre/6-sheets) where my 'tubes' only use 50ml/sheet). Still, I give it 5-stars!
cuypers1807
16-Sep-2012, 16:24
I also have one and have been using it for around 6 months. It is tricky at first to load. (I would suggest Mod54 newbies practice in the light with junk film) The sheets I have developed using it have been even and scratch free. I have a Combi Tank as well but prefer the Mod 54/Paterson combo.
thefurman
16-Sep-2012, 17:08
Another satisfied customer here. It took me a bit to get used to loading the film into the insert, but it works well and is easy to use. The only downside is the (stated, I didn't actually try this) lack of support for rotary processing, so it's a liter each time.
George E. Sheils
17-Sep-2012, 02:48
I'm another satisfied customer.
Practice makes perfect as regards loading.
What's the problem with people and chemicals?....I use Rodinal 1:100 semi stand for 30 minutes. That's around 10ml of Rodinal. Stop bath is plain water and fix is Ilford mixed 1:9.
Cheap as chips, and works great.
chuck94022
17-Sep-2012, 03:31
I wonder how many star rating this was out of? 5 out of a possible 10 perhaps?
It seems a fairly pointless rating if it is out of 5, given you state that it has the problems of a) being difficult to load, and b) uses over 3 times the volume of chemicals as "tubes".
If you are used to doing inversion development in the equivalent Jobo tank, this appears to deserve its 5stars. I tend to like my Patterson more than my Jobo, and always pined for a sheet film solution for the Patterson. I tend to like the swirly stick especially when doing C-41, so I can keep the tank in the warm bath. This looks like it will be great, I'll be buying one I think.
Chem use with this versus btzs type tubes is apples and oranges. Yeah they use less but you have to kill the lights to change chems. So it is a different sort of process. As others have said, the volume difference is no big deal most of the time.
Anyone have opinion on how it performs using the swirly stick for agitation?
Kevin J. Kolosky
17-Sep-2012, 09:25
What really impresses me is that when you go on the MOD54 site and watch the videos you will see a few different homemade solutions for using JOBO drums if you don't have one of their processors. NEAT STUFF!
JBelthoff
17-Sep-2012, 12:42
Did you not breast-feed as a child?
Excellent! Hahahahah
I also use a MOD54 however I am having a difficult time getting even development specially in the areas where the film is held with the holder. I usually don't notice unless I boost the local contrast but it is certainly there.
Doesn't stop me from using it. At least until I upgrade to an Expert Drum hopefully soon! :)
My two cents anyway....
--JB
Excellent! Hahahahah
I also use a MOD54 however I am having a difficult time getting even development specially in the areas where the film is held with the holder. I usually don't notice unless I boost the local contrast but it is certainly there.
Doesn't stop me from using it. At least until I upgrade to an Expert Drum hopefully soon! :)
My two cents anyway....
--JB
The manufacturer suggests that uneven development could be the result of insufficient agitation.
Kodachrome25
17-Sep-2012, 12:52
I had two, sold them some time ago. Reason being was they were not as consistent as my Jobo / Expert Drum and mostly because sheet film with thin base material like Rollei IR400 would come loose and stick to each other no matter what I did.
I think they are a great option for hobby shooters or folks who dont use a wet darkroom to print, but since I do this for a living, a high degree of consistency and quality in my negs is a must for fine art darkroom based prints.
JBelthoff
17-Sep-2012, 12:52
The manufacturer suggests that uneven development could be the result of insufficient agitation.
That may be but it seems to happen in the exact areas where the film is held in by the little fingers. Specially in the sky areas of negatives.... I would imagine that more agitation would cause it to increase no?
That may be but it seems to happen in the exact areas where the film is held in by the little fingers. Specially in the sky areas of negatives.... I would imagine that more agitation would cause it to increase no?
That's odd. Did you install the film with the emulsion side facing in?
Kirk Gittings
17-Sep-2012, 13:12
FWIW the reason I suggested above a more controlled test for agitation issues is that in the 34 years I have been developing film I have tried just about everything out there except this-hangers, Combi, tray, slosher, shuffle, BTZS tubes and Jobo. Based on that experience (and these were not casual trials-each one I wanted to work) I take one look at the Mod54 and I know that I personally could not get even agitation out of it. Only with shuffle, BTZS tubes and Jobo have I been able to get even agitation (though I have had problems with scratches with shuffle and BTZS). IME anything that contacts the edges of the film creates a current which results in uneven development.
FWIW the reason I suggested above a more controlled test for agitation issues is that in the 34 years I have been developing film I have tried just about everything out there except this-hangers, Combi, tray, slosher, shuffle, BTZS tubes and Jobo. Based on that experience (and these were not casual trials-each one I wanted to work) I take one look at the Mod54 and I know that I personally could not get even agitation out of it. Only with shuffle, BTZS tubes and Jobo have I been able to get even agitation (though I have had problems with scratches with shuffle and BTZS). IME anything that contacts the edges of the film creates a current which results in uneven development.
Interesting!
BTW, I've also experienced uneven development with 'tubes' and at times, horrible scratching.
JBelthoff
17-Sep-2012, 15:10
That's odd. Did you install the film with the emulsion side facing in?
Yeah I am doing everything according to instructions. And I don't want to in anyway disuade anyone from getting this unit as I have had some photos look realy good come out of it. However every sky I have done has uneven development where the film is held into the holder and it is because of the developer flow over that area. It is quite visible.
All in all I have put approx 150 B&W negatives through this and for the most part it is a quick inexpensive mod for the patterson tank that works until you need those smooth gradiants from things like the sky and other similar situations. And then plan to photoshop the heck out of your image....
Currently I am saving up for a Jobo 3010 but the Jobo is 6-7 times the cost of the MOD54.
So if you want exacting results you will need more than the MOD54 and if you don't mind some post processing and want to save some coin then the MOD54 does work really well.
I hope this helps.
-- JB
beellsphotos
30-May-2013, 19:39
You guys that are using the MDO54- are you doing spin agitation with the stick or inversion? I'm just curious what others are doing.
mathieu Bauwens
31-May-2013, 02:22
inversion
I have been inverting/leaning at a 60 degree angle and a 1/3 twist three times per cycle.
SergeiR
31-May-2013, 10:28
used to do inversion - kept getting issues with uneven development.. now i just lay tank on edge of table and roll back and fourth - seems to do hell of the lot better.. (apart from traditional loosing of sheet or two - nothing major).
Invert, spin 180, turn back upright, spin 180...full first minute and 3 inversions at the beginning of every subsequent minute. 100 sheets now in the new one with zero issues.
tenderobject
2-Jun-2013, 16:08
I did some agitation using the twizzle stick the first time i used it and i did get some streaks/lines on my negs especially on skies..
Then i changed my procedure. I added presoaking, invertion like i'm developing roll films. I still get some streaks especially the negs that are near the center of the processor. I thought my 4x5 sheets are the culprit since it was been on my carry-on luggage when i travel from Manila to Iran. lol Someone, sent me a message about the streaks/lines on his negative as well so i think it's the processor not a film problem.
I will test it again this week. I will add 2 dummy sheets near the center of processor in both sides. Hopefully i could get read of streaking. I hate it especially i'm doing a lot of landscape subjects on 4x5.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8323/8104144698_49d5b1ca13_c.jpg
By the way, developers i used was Ilford Ilfosol and ID-11.. Anyone had this problem as well?
The new version looks promising..
Light Guru
3-Jun-2013, 07:13
I did some agitation using the twizzle stick the first time i used it and i did get some streaks/lines on my negs especially on skies..
Then i changed my procedure. I added presoaking, invertion like i'm developing roll films. I still get some streaks especially the negs that are near the center of the processor. I thought my 4x5 sheets are the culprit since it was been on my carry-on luggage when i travel from Manila to Iran. lol Someone, sent me a message about the streaks/lines on his negative as well so i think it's the processor not a film problem.
I will test it again this week. I will add 2 dummy sheets near the center of processor in both sides. Hopefully i could get read of streaking. I hate it especially i'm doing a lot of landscape subjects on 4x5.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8323/8104144698_49d5b1ca13_c.jpg
By the way, developers i used was Ilford Ilfosol and ID-11.. Anyone had this problem as well?
The new version looks promising..
Notice the two light spots 1/3rd of the way in from each side. This is a typical uneven development problem caused by the mod54. Those spots are right where the holder makes contact with the film.
The design of the holder prevents good circulation of chemistry in those spots. The only way to overcome that is more agitation when developing to move the chemistry around. But that again poses a new problem of to much agitation will cause even thick films to come out of place, and even small amounts af agitation will cause thin films to come out of place with the mod54.
The holder is simply NOT reliable for developing of film. I only keep mine because it works great for film washing.
Yeah, i originally kept thinking my holders are leaking , when i kept seeing these streaks.. Never managed to get decent sheets on edges when used inversion.. Since i switched to rotating its not a problem anymore.. although i do manage to shake off sheet or two sometime, but that doesnt affect development at all. Guess i rotate things angry enough to get chemistry in places ;)
But i still would rather get another Jobo tank for here b/c that thing is just way too unpredictable
I have an earlier-version MOD54. I did twizzle stick agitation at first and kept having problems with streaks in skies. I haven't had a problem since switching to inversion. I do make sure to do the inversions very, very slowly (180 degrees over the course of 4-5 seconds), which avoids the issue of the sheets jumping out of their tracks. As long as I'm consistent with my technique I get consistent results.
tenderobject
3-Jun-2013, 12:30
Yeah, that was my problem. I got some sheets that doesn't have these problem from my previous developing session but some still has the streaks. My agitation is like developing roll films so it's too much than using twizzle stick.
I'm not sure wether if it's in the first (near the center) or the second row that's having the streaks. I will try to check it again this week. I will also try to use some dummy sheets but that would be quite a big waste of developer!
Anyone got rid of this streaking problem with Mod54? How about the new version? He changed the design on the new version. Looks good.
Notice the two light spots 1/3rd of the way in from each side. This is a typical uneven development problem caused by the mod54. Those spots are right where the holder makes contact with the film.
The design of the holder prevents good circulation of chemistry in those spots. The only way to overcome that is more agitation when developing to move the chemistry around. But that again poses a new problem of to much agitation will cause even thick films to come out of place, and even small amounts af agitation will cause thin films to come out of place with the mod54.
The holder is simply NOT reliable for developing of film. I only keep mine because it works great for film washing.
tenderobject
3-Jun-2013, 12:35
Hi, how do you do your invertions? Seems like i'm doing it the wrong way :(. I changed my procedure after getting these streaks but the last sheets i developed still got streaking but minimal than the first sheets i made with the processor but still it's there. I'm doing invertion like i'm developing roll films the problem sometimes is that the sheets jumps out of its track . Just need to get rid of those streakings! I though the first time was that my films are xray fogged since i put it in my carry on luggage but now it seems the culprit is the processor. I might try tray processing if ever i get streakings again next time.
I have an earlier-version MOD54. I did twizzle stick agitation at first and kept having problems with streaks in skies. I haven't had a problem since switching to inversion. I do make sure to do the inversions very, very slowly (180 degrees over the course of 4-5 seconds), which avoids the issue of the sheets jumping out of their tracks. As long as I'm consistent with my technique I get consistent results.
Hi, how do you do your invertions? Seems like i'm doing it the wrong way :(. I changed my procedure after getting these streaks but the last sheets i developed still got streaking but minimal than the first sheets i made with the processor but still it's there. I'm doing invertion like i'm developing roll films the problem sometimes is that the sheets jumps out of its track . Just need to get rid of those streakings! I though the first time was that my films are xray fogged since i put it in my carry on luggage but now it seems the culprit is the processor. I might try tray processing if ever i get streakings again next time.
As I said, I invert very slowly - it takes me at least a few seconds to turn the whole thing. That avoids having the liquid in the tank slosh around too much, which is what pushes the film out of the tracks. Definitely more gentle than when I'm doing rollfilm.
tenderobject
3-Jun-2013, 15:56
I've done that but still got streaks. :( My last resort is to use dummy sheets. I'll update you guys in a few days.
As I said, I invert very slowly - it takes me at least a few seconds to turn the whole thing. That avoids having the liquid in the tank slosh around too much, which is what pushes the film out of the tracks. Definitely more gentle than when I'm doing rollfilm.
Light Guru
3-Jun-2013, 16:04
I've done that but still got streaks. :( My last resort is to use dummy sheets. I'll update you guys in a few days.
The mod54 already requires a LOT of chemistry and using dummy sheets makes it even more a wasteful of chemistry. There are other methods that will develop evenly that won't have sheets of film coming out of place, and that will use much less chemistry.
tenderobject
3-Jun-2013, 16:29
If you require Jobo i don't think i could afford that right now.. So, my option is still mod54 i just need to get it right..
The mod54 already requires a LOT of chemistry and using dummy sheets makes it even more a wasteful of chemistry. There are other methods that will develop evenly that won't have sheets of film coming out of place, and that will use much less chemistry.
The mod54 already requires a LOT of chemistry and using dummy sheets makes it even more a wasteful of chemistry.
to be fair - it requires no more chemistry than doing things in HP or Frank daylight tanks (ok in Frank you getting 12 sheets, so its a bit less waste).
However i did experiment yesterday with my method and 500ml vs usual 1000ml.. and.. it worked just fine ;)
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2823/8937461580_cbd53a0642_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8937461580/)
Simple things: pen and feathers (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8937461580/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
I mean i would still rather use real rotary tank and motobase, but i dont have it when i am in Russia and from experience - i am not bleedin' travelling with exposed film back :( Done that, ruined quite a lot of shots with scratches.
Light Guru
3-Jun-2013, 19:05
If you require Jobo i don't think i could afford that right now.. So, my option is still mod54 i just need to get it right..
Mod54 and Jobo are NOT the only options.
I personally think tray developing is best, but you should also check out a unrolled drum and more raised base.
Light Guru
3-Jun-2013, 19:06
to be fair - it requires no more chemistry than doing things in HP or Frank daylight tanks (ok in Frank you getting 12 sheets, so its a bit less waste).
I'm referring to tray rev elopement and rotary based development systems. They use much less chemistry.
Yeah, see.. i hate tray development :) And again - MOD54 + paterson are never been truly intended to be rotary system so you comparing apples and oranges. With tray - yes, you might get away with less, i guess.
I'm referring to tray rev elopement and rotary based development systems. They use much less chemistry.
Chemicals are cheap and tray development doesn't suit everyone's environment. Luckily for me, it does.
Light Guru
3-Jun-2013, 20:02
Yeah, see.. i hate tray development :) And again - MOD54 + paterson are never been truly intended to be rotary system so you comparing apples and oranges. With tray - yes, you might get away with less, i guess.
Who gave the idea that the mod54 was a rotary system?
Rotary systems like the unicolor drum uses only 8 ounces to develop 4 sheets.
Who gave the idea that the mod54 was a rotary system?
Rotary systems like the unicolor drum uses only 8 ounces to develop 4 sheets.
you.
I'm referring to tray rev elopement and rotary based development systems. They use much less chemistry.
Light Guru
3-Jun-2013, 20:10
you.
Re read the post I did not say the mod54 was a rotary system.
Shootar401
4-Jun-2013, 06:58
I have a mod 54 and I've given up on using it. I have gotten way to many scratches on my film from where the "fingers" that hold the sheets in place make contact with the film. And every time I develop some films they always come loose and end up doing whatever they want inside my tank.
I went back to trays for 4x5 and racks & tanks for my E6 and I couldn't be happier. It's a great product just needs a lot of refinement.
beellsphotos
7-Jun-2013, 07:32
I just did my first round last night with the newest version of the MOD54 (MK27), no scratches, no detached sheets. I did inversions and I was not specifically gentle. I'm not seeing any unevenness in sky in the first batch I've scanned but I will keep you all updated.
Fredrick
7-Jun-2013, 08:43
I have the mod54 and I'm not the biggest fan. I've used it two times. The first time went smoothly, except for some marks where the sheets touched the holders. The second time was yesterday. Two of my sheets got detached and are ruined - they are useable, but the corners are blank. I have BTZS tubes for 8x10. I love them. In the start my negatives suffered from scratching, but that was due to violent first agitation. Like in Fred Newman's video. Now I'm more gentle and I have not have a scratched negative. I am considering BTZS for 4x5 too. The only thing I really like about the Mod54 is the daylight operation. The BTZS tubes are however better. There is of course another advantage with the Mod54, the ability to develop 6 sheets at one time. The chemistry usage is a bit high at 1 litre, vs 60ml with the BTZS tubes.
I have the newer mk27 version to try. I am hopeful the issues are resolved.
Here is my report. Yesterday I used the latest version of the MOD54 for the first time with mixed results as I will describe below. First the positive. After having practiced loading two dummy sheet of 4x5 in daylight, I had no problem whatsoever loading two exposed sheets into the MOD54 in total darkness. Since this was a test, I used two sheets, one in each of the outermost sets of fingers. I was actually surprised that loading in complete darkness was as easy as it was. During developing I always use, even with 35mm and 120 reels, the key that comes with the Patterson tank and just spin the reels inside for the required time interval. I never rap the tank on a counter to remove air bubbles and have never had any issues with bubbles hindering development of the film. I used this same procedure with the MOD54. Once the film was fixed, I opened the tank and the film sheets were in the same place I had placed them. I have read in other forums from other users of the MOD54 that the sheets had dislodged from the fingers .uneven development, but that was not the case in my experience with the MOD54. I washed the film in the tank while still in the MOD54 and hung the two sheets up to dry. Now the negative (no pun intended). Once the two sheets dried I examined them and to my horror there were in both sheets, scratches in the side opposite the emulsion. These were not mild scratches but rather deep gouges in the the FP4+ sheets of film which uses a rather thick film base stock. It looked as if they had been made by some type of metal element in contact with the film. I traced back my steps from loading the film into the holders and then to the processor, but could not find anything that might have caused this. I loaded the two exposed sheets back into the MOD54 and noticed that the location of the scratches was in the vicinity of the first set of fingers from the bottom of the unit. With this finding and the fact that in other forums users of the MOD54 have also reported scratched film sheets I concluded that the MOD54 is the culprit. The MOD54 is made from a somewhat soft plastic, probably a polyethylene, so its surprising that it could cause so much damage. If it were made from a hard plastic like a polycarbonate, I could understand it. Next I examined the MOD54 unit to see what could cause the scratches. Each of the horizontal elements of the unit has a thin line running right around each element which is where the two halves of the mold used to make each of these elements meet. I figured that if this mold line could be sanded out in the area of the fingers, the scratches might dissapear. To that end I used a tiny file on the edge of the top flange, but it made the surface rougher still. Next I used 2000 grit wet/dry sandpaper, which is used to remove small scratches from lacquer painted surfaces, but that did not work possibly because the plastic of the MOD54 is too soft. I would like to know if anyone has found a solution to this problem. The MOD54 is potentially helpful in developing 4x5 film. However, if it cannot be prevented from scratching film, it is all but useless.
tenderobject
9-Jun-2013, 17:48
can you post images as well? thanks!
I just did my first round last night with the newest version of the MOD54 (MK27), no scratches, no detached sheets. I did inversions and I was not specifically gentle. I'm not seeing any unevenness in sky in the first batch I've scanned but I will keep you all updated.
tenderobject
9-Jun-2013, 17:50
thanks fred. i will check btzs as well. i will be having 8x10 soon so i need a proper processor for it. i might try tray first but need to read more about it. i've tried tray before and i had problem with multiuple sheets.. so i never try it again after..
I have the mod54 and I'm not the biggest fan. I've used it two times. The first time went smoothly, except for some marks where the sheets touched the holders. The second time was yesterday. Two of my sheets got detached and are ruined - they are useable, but the corners are blank. I have BTZS tubes for 8x10. I love them. In the start my negatives suffered from scratching, but that was due to violent first agitation. Like in Fred Newman's video. Now I'm more gentle and I have not have a scratched negative. I am considering BTZS for 4x5 too. The only thing I really like about the Mod54 is the daylight operation. The BTZS tubes are however better. There is of course another advantage with the Mod54, the ability to develop 6 sheets at one time. The chemistry usage is a bit high at 1 litre, vs 60ml with the BTZS tubes.
I'm now over 100 sheets in with the new version without a single issue.
Are you peeps that are getting streaks using short development times??
Here is my report. Yesterday I used the latest version of the MOD54 for the first time with mixed results as I will describe below. First the positive. After having practiced loading two dummy sheet of 4x5 in daylight, I had no problem whatsoever loading two exposed sheets into the MOD54 in total darkness. Since this was a test, I used two sheets, one in each of the outermost sets of fingers.
I know this is in your positive section, however, if you are using this with less than 6 sheets the instructions say to use the innermost.
I know this is in your positive section, however, if you are using this with less than 6 sheets the instructions say to use the innermost.
I will try that next time. However, I do not see why it should make a difference with scratches or with anything else for that matter. How does the processor know how many sheets are installed? Can anyone see why the location of the sheets would determine whether the side opposite the emulsion suffers scratches?
tenderobject
9-Jun-2013, 19:55
usually 6-9 mins developing..
I'm now over 100 sheets in with the new version without a single issue.
Are you peeps that are getting streaks using short development times??
The instructions say that if you are not developing all 6 sheets that it is best to use dummy sheets and the dummy's go on the inside. If you are using it outside the instructions than I'm not sure how that can be the products fault...A Porsche sucks if you are using it for off road too... :)
I've never had scratches so I can't help you there but not sure how you'd get scratches if you are loading emulsion faced inwards without crazy agitation. Have you emailed the company about it?
Instructions say use longer times.
http://www.mod54.com/about.php
For HP5+ I use 12 min with 1:1 Xtol and over 100 sheets in with no streaking. Notice that the instructions say use times that are around 16 minutes, however, I've never had a problem using this combo....If I ever do that will be my fault as I didn't follow the instructions.
Kirk Gittings
9-Jun-2013, 20:11
Has anyone actually done a decent test just for even development with this? Try photographing something even like an evenly lit blank wall-out of focus- and place it on middle grey and do a test. What you want to know is what will happen if you ever photograph a scene with allot of say blank sky and the blank wall test will tell you that whereas most images have too much detail to really judge evenness.
Yes I have.
If anybody can't get even development I suggest they try a that wild and wack solution first....read the instructions :)
I posted the link above.
tenderobject
9-Jun-2013, 20:25
i've done different approach when developing my sheets. the last time i still had a minimal streaks on my negs.. the streaks are still there. not worse than the first batches of films that i've developed with this processor. what i said in my previous post was i've develop my sheets like roll film. invertion etc etc.. it minimise the streak though but as i said. it still there. i will try another approach next time ( 2 dummy sheets in the inner slots then 4 sheets) with id-11 developer and 1+3 for longer times. i will update this thread asap!
The instructions say that if you are not developing all 6 sheets that it is best to use dummy sheets and the dummy's go on the inside. If you are using it outside the instructions than I'm not sure how that can be the products fault...A Porsche sucks if you are using it for off road too... :)
I've never had scratches so I can't help you there but not sure how you'd get scratches if you are loading emulsion faced inwards without crazy agitation. Have you emailed the company about it?
My issue was not regulating the flow of chemicals. Development of the sheets was complete and without any issue other than the scratches. Its bizarre because the scratches extended well beyond the area where the fingers are on the processor. The pattern of the scratches was from horizontal to a 45 degree angle, not vertical. The scratches did not affect the image because in that area the film was completely clear as I was photographing some objects placed against a black background. Had not this been case I am sure the scratches would be visible in an area of the negative having gray tones. Agitation was extremely gentle the same as I always do with roll film and I have never had any issue. I will develop two other test sheets, this time on the inside but no dummy sheets. If results are not satisfactory I will contact the mfg.
Its bizarre because the scratches extended well beyond the area where the fingers are on the processor. The pattern of the scratches was from horizontal to a 45 degree angle, not vertical.
The fingers are finite and vertical (on the 5" edge) and if loaded correctly not touching the emulsion side so not sure how the product could do that during development without morphing. Are you scratching them putting them in/out of the holders or in your method of loading the mod54?
You can only see scratches in dark spots?
Most common cause of cracking in a negative is not using consistent temperatures between development stages.
Follow the instructions if you are having problems. The instructions say that it is best to use 6 sheets...use dummy's for developing less than that with dummy's on the inside.
Its bizarre because the scratches extended well beyond the area where the fingers are on the processor. The pattern of the scratches was from horizontal to a 45 degree angle, not vertical. The scratches did not affect the image because in that area the film was completely clear as I was photographing some objects placed against a black background.
The only conclusion i find from the above notes is that the scratches were caused elsewhere. Perhaps during loading or unloading you holders, perhaps during transport of the film while loaded in holders, perhaps during loading into the MOD54 (not by the MOD but by anything else).
Had not this been case I am sure the scratches would be visible in an area of the negative having gray tones.
As we still have not seen first hand the problems you are seeing on your negs, the only way to really be "sure" is to test your theory and see what happens.
Let us know how your next test goes - good luck!
The only conclusion i find from the above notes is that the scratches were caused elsewhere. Perhaps during loading or unloading you holders, perhaps during transport of the film while loaded in holders, perhaps during loading into the MOD54 (not by the MOD but by anything else).
As we still have not seen first hand the problems you are seeing on your negs, the only way to really be "sure" is to test your theory and see what happens.
Let us know how your next test goes - good luck!
For my next test I need to pay extremely close attention to the entire procedure, from taking the film out of the box, to loading in the film holder, to removing it from the film holder and feel with my fingers in the areas I know now where scratches can be located, if any scratches develop at any point prior to the film being loaded into the MOD54. This will eliminate the possibility of this happening prior to the film being loaded into the MOD54. Will report on my findings next weekend.
johndmchugh
11-Jun-2013, 13:07
OK, I've never posted here before, but have used the site extensively for my own education, and I thank you all for that. However, after a year of using various versions of the MOD54, I feel very confident with the product. In fact I really don't understand how people are having problems with it. I shoot FP4 almost exclusively, inverting and agitating in accordance with Ilford's instructions, and have never had a single sheet dislodge, nor experience the streaking issues that others mention. I work regularly in Afghanistan and have used the MOD54 to process my film out there. I was worried about the reduction in developing times due to the heat, but even with times considerably shorter than my usual eight and a half minutes I didn't have any problems. Now, I know I am a bit OCD, so I really do stick to the exact same inversion, agitation and gentle rotation technique. And I think that's the point. Some people here are talking about trying it once or twice and not being happy with it. Would you take out a new camera or lens and try it once or twice and then make your decision? I wouldn't. Like many people on this forum, I take time to try and understand the equipment I use, to get to know its vagaries and foibles, and to learn the limitations and occurring variances before I can decide whether its for me. Sure, the MOD54 isn't for everyone. But it works for me, and has never ever let me down, even in the most demanding of locations.
Light Guru
11-Jun-2013, 13:48
And I think that's the point. Some people here are talking about trying it once or twice and not being happy with it.
I've use it many times, in fact I have two of them, and I bought the second one a year after I bought the first. I have found the mod54 to only be usable on thick sheets of film.
Illford uses thick sheets of film so that is why you have have not had any issues, i myself had no issues when using illford film with the mod54. Kodak sheet films are thinner and thus have issues with sheet film coming out of place with the exact same agitation that i used with illford films. when I decreased the amount agitation to prevent the sheets from coming out of place I got uneven development because the mod54 holder itself prevented the chemistry from cerculating properly around the part of the holder that holds the film.
I didnt even dare try the mod54 on the super thin Rolli IR film.
the MOD54 isn't for everyone. But it works for me, and has never ever let me down, even in the most demanding of locations.
Nobody has ever said that the location of where the mod54 is used would negatively effect the development.
I now just use the mod54 to hold film when washing. I put a small hose from the sinkinto the center column of the Paterson tank and give it low water flow. Works great for a washer for when i develop in trays.
Ian Gordon Bilson
12-Jun-2013, 03:02
That will explain my own experience with the MOD 54,first model.
I used some fogged,thin-based film,and could not load it well,even in the light. And I don't think I am more fumble-fingered than the average LFPI member.And as for inversion agitation ?
Back to the Combiplan for me.
This is a follow-up to my post concerning my initial experiences with scratches on film sheets when using a MOD54 unit, following the recommendations of several responses on the thread.
I examined the film sheets in the dark just after removing one at a time from the box by running the tip of my finger in the area where I had found the scratches in the previous sheets: no scratches were found. I carefully loaded them into the film holders. After exposing the four sheets of FP4+, I carefully removed them from the film holders one at a time and again examined them with my finger as previously: no scratches were found. I loaded them into the MOD54 in the following manner: two sheets in the finger positions closest to the center column, and two sheets in the opposite side in the finger positions farthest away from the center column. Regardless of what anyone says, one can never position the sheets into the fingers of the MOD54 without several adjustments.
I developed the sheets in Pyrocat-HD with the MOD54 in the Patterson tank. Without a doubt the Pyrocat-HD/FP4+ combination yields great results, beautiful contrast and definition with no fog, but that belongs in another post.
At the conclusion of the developing process, when the sheets had dried I examined the sheets and observed the following (all sheets in vertical position with the notches in the lower right hand corner:
sheet closest to the center column: on the right side of the sheet, two separate scratches about 1/8" long corresponding to the upper sets of fingers of the MOD54; on the left side two scratches in a vertical v pattern each leg about 3/8" long corresponding to the upper sets of fingers.
sheet second closest to the center column: on the right side, one scratch about 1/8" long corresponding to the upper set of fingers, no scratches on the left side.
sheet farthest from the center column: no scratches on the right side, one scratch about 3/16" long on the left side corresponding to the lower set of fingers.
sheet second farthest from the center column: no scratches on the right side, one scratch about 1/4" long on the left side corresponding to the upper set of fingers.
Note that all scratches mentioned above are at the closest to the edge of the film sheets.
Without doubt the source of the scratches is the MOD54. I suspect this occurs when the sheets are repositioned in the fingers and the culprit is the casting ridge in the plastic that runs all around each of the horizontal sets of fingers.
The purpose of my post is not to claim that the MOD54 is a poorly designed product but rather to find a solution to this issue, because if this problem can be solved it is a terrific aid to daylight processing. I am still exploring the possibility of mechanically removing this ridge, but in experimenting on other areas of the MOD54 where the ridge is more readily accessible, I have not found the proper technique to accomplish this. When I find a solution I will post it.
I have also not been successful in digitally photographing the negatives to show the scratches. I should also add that so far, because the scratches are not in the emulsion side, they do not show up in printing or scanning the negative. However, does one really want to have valuable negatives exhibit scratches? I think not.
I have also not been successful in digitally photographing the negatives to show the scratches. I should also add that so far, because the scratches are not in the emulsion side, they do not show up in printing or scanning the negative. However, does one really want to have valuable negatives exhibit scratches? I think not.
Scanning is the way to go. If you cannot see the scratches, i am not sure what the thread is about, at the bottom line - when you send you negative out for processing in a dip and dunk machine, you get 1cm long punch marks, on each and every corner of the sheet, sometimes truly protruding in to the actual image area. And unless you are eileen cowin, that stuff really is annoying. If you are getting some surface issues, that are not reproduced after all, i would not worry about it, and just move on.
That said - i would still want to see a proper scan of the issue.
Pascal Gineste
29-Jun-2013, 01:23
I developed my very first set of 6 4x5 negatives a few days ago with the MOD54, current version. Fomapan 100 with Ilford LC29.
Loading was a bit unnerving, until I finally got it right. My method is to load a sheet starting at the outermost position, and then move it step by step to its intended position. I kept getting jammed sheets otherwise. Developing went without a hitch, 8 minutes in expired LC29 (1+29), Ilford method. No traces, no scratches, even development, very few specks, in short I'm happy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.