Pyrocat HD in slosher

[Kirk Gittings]

I have been using PC HD (in glycol) in BTZS tubes with success. I switched to the slosher because I get fine scratches inserting and withdrawing the film from BTZS tubes. I thought the Pyrocat HD/slosher combo would be the best of all worlds.

However, I am having trouble getting even development with the slosher-very evident in clear skies. This is a 6 up slosher in a an 11x14 tray. One minute pre-soak, 2000ml of developer, 1:1:100, Acros, emulsion up.

Agitation method is lifting each side and dropping it-rotating sides as I go, 30 seconds to start and 5 seconds each 30 seconds in a PF slosher.

Too aggressive? Your thoughts?

I think you can see the faint surge marks in the marked corner. I don't remember the orientation of that corner in the slosher.

PS. no comments about the image-an outtake from the worlds most boring HABS project in Phoenix. Saved this film for testing.

[Brian C. Miller]

Are you lifting up the tray, or the slosher itself? When I use my slosher, I lift up the tray.
How far is the film surface underneath the surface of the developer? My slosher holds the film close to the tray bottom, with plenty of clearance between the film and the surface.
What happens if you use a more aggressive agitation?

[Larry H-L]

Hi Kirk,

I use this method for 4x5, no problems so far.

I would suggest a longer pre-soak, and occasionally lifting the entire slasher tray all the way out of the liquid and draining it off one corner. Then agitate using your method, gently tipping up various corners. Then after a couple of minutes, lift completely again and drain to a different corner.

Most uneven development in my experience comes from agitation that is too gentle. (Not longer agitation, use more vigorous agitation).

And if you didn't have those glorious NM skies, you wouldn't have this problem! ; )

Good luck, let us know how it goes.

[Kirk Gittings]

Brian, I was lifting the slosher-not the tray. I don't know how far the film is under the developer-its in the dark! No really I will check.

What is your agitation times?

OK I checked the depth. The film sinks to the bottom and is covered by about 1/4 inch of developer.

[jeroldharter]

Have you tried continuous agitation like with the BTZS tubes?

[Kirk Gittings]

No I haven't.

[Brian C. Miller]

When I slosh with my DIY slosher, I start with a brisk slosh with the slosher itself, back and forth underneath the liquid surface to dislodge air bubbles underneath the film. After that, it's 5 seconds per 30 seconds, picking up the tray sides. I use 500ml in a 5x7 tray, and that's been fine for me.

Could you please crop your picture and bring up the contrast? I can barely see the problem.
Also, you might try loading up the slosher with some test scrap film and see what's happening in room light.

[Richard Wasserman]

Kirk,

I have found that the initial agitation in a Slosher is vital. I agitate by swirling the Slosher in small, random circular movements for the first minute and do it quite vigorously. Also as soon as you put the Slosher in the tray check that all the film is underwater. A third hand helps, so you can agitate at the same time. For all subsequent agitation cycles I lift the corners of the Slosher and gently push them back down, and will occasionally do the random circular motion thing. I use about a 3 minute presoak, but I'm not sure that makes much difference. I have developed hundreds and hundreds of sheets using this method and only very rarely have a problem.

[Kirk Gittings]

Here it is cropped with a contrast bump.

[Gem Singer]

This is what I have found when developing 4x5 and 5x7 Ilford HP-5+ in Pyrocat 1:1:100 by the dip-and- dunk method:

(Can also be applied when using a Slosher).

Pre-soak for at least two minutes.

The most critical time is during the first minute of development.

The film needs to be continuously agitated during the first minute. Not overly aggressively, but gentle continuous agitation.

After the first minute, fifteen seconds of gentle agitation at one minute intervals will result in even development with maximum acutance.

(For a thinner negative, ideal for scanning, agitate for fifteen seconds at two minute intervals).

[Brian C. Miller]

Thanks, I meant zoom in (bigger chunk to look at) and give me chalk and charcoal. :) Anyways, that looks more like not enough agitation in that corner, probably a problem with initial development. I'm guessing that edge was towards the center of your slosher, and if you put the other negatives together like a jigsaw puzzle, you'd see matching areas of development patterns.

[false_Aesthetic]

Kirk,

My experience with a slosher involves Efke 25 and PMK. I was told to pre-soak for 5 minutes (which seemed overkill but I still did it). Initial agitation is done by lifting the entire tray and aggressive enough to hear the film "clack" against the sides for 1 minute. Then every 15 seconds there after I raised 1 corner of the tray going in a counter-clockwise rotation.

I was told not to raise the slosher tray itself because there's a chance of getting an air bubble under the film.

http://tftolhurst.com/Heliotrope-2007-2010 is the stuff I did with the slosher.

[Victor Loverro]

I process 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 in Jobo drums on a Beseler motor base this way and get no scratches.
I presoak in a tray, shuffling through several times and then transfer the film to the drum filled with water. I pour the water out before attaching the lid. I put my hand over the end, but the film does not move anyway. When it is time to remove the film, I fill the drum again with water and they slide out easily. No scratches.

[Kirk Gittings]

I was told not to raise the slosher tray itself because there's a chance of getting an air bubble under the film.
Which would lift the film op to the surface. Hmmm could be. I will test it agitating your way but I am low on developer right now-more coming.

[ROL]

You haven't indicated what kind of slosher or what size film. If the uprights of the "basket" material are thick (as most homemade are), they can pull and separate developer within the resulting Von Karmann vortices as it flows behind the uprights, particularly with pyro. I use a thin SS wire basket.

I had troubles in my beloved skies, until I went to the next larger tray size and increased developer by at least 50%. This seems to cure many people's surge problems.

[Colin Graham]

You haven't indicated what kind of slosher or what size film. If the uprights of the "basket" material are thick (as most homemade are), they can pull and separate developer within the resulting Von Karmann vortices as it flows behind the uprights, particularly with pyro. I use a thin SS wire basket.

I had troubles in my beloved skies, until I went to the next larger tray size and increased developer by at least 50%. This seems to cure many people's surge problems.

Nice idea. Where did you get the stainless steel wire basket?

Mine are homemade from lexan and every time I think I have the agitation routine down, I'll get a bad batch out of the blue.

[Kirk Gittings]

ROL, I said PF slosher in my OP. Meaning Photographers Formulary. Sorry. Tell me about this SS basket?

[tgtaylor]

As an FYI: Fuji recommends continuous agitation for the first minute and then 5 seconds agitation every minute thereafter.

I shoot Acros (120 and 4x5) and develope in Jobo tanks. For hand inversion I presoak for 2 minutes and then develop using Fuji's agitation recommendations using Xtol 1:1 for 9.25 minutes @ 68F. Negatives come out beautiful every time.

Coincidentially I mixed up a fresh batch of Xtol yesterday and instead of throwing away the 350mL that was remaining in the tank I developed a roll of 120 that I had in the camera. The film was apparently misaligned on the paper as 3/4 the of first frame was missing and the other 1/4th appeared under the tape with the leading edge trailing after the 10th frame (6x7). Apparently it was reversed on the roll at the factory.

Thomas

[ROL]

Sorry, I've seen those. PF, I must have been thinking flyers.;)

Mine is a formed SS wire basket, 2 – (5x7), with an approximate 8x10 footprint. It was made by Gerry Butler (?), a Sacramento photographer, who made all sizes before retiring due to arthritic hands, about 10 years ago. He was selling out his remaining stock of a few unpurchased units at that time.


http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/SupportPics/LFPF/DevelopingBasket.jpg

Specifically, I use an 11x14 (dimpled) tray with 1.5 liters of developer, after inconsistent results with only 1 liter. That size tray and solution would also be advisable for 4 - 4x5's, of an equivalent design. 6 – (4x5's??), probably closer to 11x14 footprint (I'm guessing), for which I would suggest a 16x20 tray and at least 2 liters. Smaller trays may be used with the remaining parts of the developing process. In any case, if you're having issues, you don't want the slosher anywhere near the wall of a developer tray, and using more developer is an easy fix, if it works for you.

[Kirk Gittings]

That is a sweet setup ROL with very little to cause currents near the film. Wish I had one to try-might not be too hard to make out of SS wire?

For now being short on PCHD dev. I went back to the BTZS tubes and will try again when my new stash of PCHD shows up from Photographers's Formulary.

In some ways the BTZS tubes are more efficient with just 12 oz. (6 4x5 sheets) on dev. required (one shot). I have noticed that with the slosher trying to reuse the considerable amount needed for the slosher (64 oz)-PCHD it oxidizes pretty quickly even when the tray is covered in between runs the last run impossible because the dev. has oxidized. In general I vastly prefer a one-shot method with chemicals for safety and consistency anyway.

[Kirk Gittings]

If could find these in about 2 1/2 inches in length, Stainless Steel, it would be a snap to make a free flowing slosher out of almost any 11x14 tray. I was unable to find such a length say 3/16x2 1/2 on the web. Anyone better at this kind of source search? All you engineers/machinists out there?

[Richard Wasserman]

If could find these in about 2 1/2 inches in length, Stainless Steel, it would be a snap to make a free flowing slosher out of almost any 11x14 tray. I was unable to find such a length say 3/16x2 1/2 on the web. Anyone better at this kind of source search? All you engineers/machinists out there?


McMaster-Carr has 2" plastic— http://www.mcmaster.com/#sex-screws/=hemfv6 I'm curious though, why do they need to be so long?

[Kirk Gittings]

That'll work I think-the 2" plastic ones. My thinking about the length....with the Photographers Formulary slosher (watching is while doing a test with the lights on) some suggested lifting one end completely out of the dev. and dropping it. With that kind of action the film floats up to the top of the dev. briefly and this height 2 to 2 1/2 inches (about the height of the PF slosher sides) would insure that film didn't escape its "jail". This height may not be necessary when the keepers are bolted to the bottom of a tray and the tray is simply rocked?

I ordered some of the black 2" plastic and will try them out (50 for $9-what have I got to lose?)-probably not before I get back from Chicago in early July though.

[Richard Wasserman]

I've not found floating film to be an issue after the initial period of agitation. I do make sure all the film is underwater as soon as I slide the slosher into the tray—I use all 4 of my hands....

I thought maybe you were making a slosher type insert using the sex-screws to hold the film.





That'll work I think-the 2" plastic ones. My thinking about the length....with the Photographers Formulary slosher (watching is while doing a test with the lights on) some suggested lifting one end completely out of the dev. and dropping it. With that kind of action the film floats up to the top of the dev. briefly and this height 2 to 2 1/2 inches (about the height of the PF slosher sides) would insure that film didn't escape its "jail". This height may not be necessary when the keepers are bolted to the bottom of a tray and the tray is simply rocked?

I ordered some of the black 2" plastic and will try them out (50 for $9-what have I got to lose?)-probably not before I get back from Chicago in early July though.

[Kirk Gittings]

I may make an insert with a mesh base or just do a tray. I'd like to do an insert I think.

[Peter De Smidt]

Using only enough developer to cover the film by 1/4th inch might be a contributing problem. Bumping that up to at least 1/2" might help. When I tray develop film, I use a big tray and a lot of developer. I've never used a slosher, though. Imo, especially for film destined for digital printing, evenness of development is more important than promoting edge effects, at least it is up until any unevenness becomes unnoticeable.

[Jim Noel]

When I have had the opportunity to view the negatives with problems resulting from use of a slosher, and the slosher which was used, I find that usually it is a problem with slosher construction. Most are built of plastic and the dividers are fare too large thus resulting in surge marks when agitating. The best are made of very fine stainless steel wire. Mine are made of 0.008 inch stainless wire. We had some made of stainless welding wire at the college where I taught for 20 years and had no problems with surge marks.
Definitely lifting the corners of the tray is to be preferred to lifting either the sides of the tray or the slosher.
Additionally the slosher should not be able to move around in the tray which adds to surges and an abundance of chemical helps to lessen the unwanted surges.

[Roger Thoms]

When I have had the opportunity to view the negatives with problems resulting from use of a slosher, and the slosher which was used, I find that usually it is a problem with slosher construction. Most are built of plastic and the dividers are fare too large thus resulting in surge marks when agitating. The best are made of very fine stainless steel wire. Mine are made of 0.008 inch stainless wire. We had some made of stainless welding wire at the college where I taught for 20 years and had no problems with surge marks.
Definitely lifting the corners of the tray is to be preferred to lifting either the sides of the tray or the slosher.
Additionally the slosher should not be able to move around in the tray which adds to surges and an abundance of chemical helps to lessen the unwanted surges.

A lab I use occasionally, uses sloshers that sounds like what you are describing and they get good results. Basically it is a flat sheet of Plexiglass with fine stainless steel wire that forms a hoop over the each corner of the sheet of film. The wire goes through small holes drilled in the Plexiglass. The one I saw fit in a 16x20 tray, and would do 16 sheets of 4x5. I asked and they said they have been using them for years.

Roger

[Kirk Gittings]

Using only enough developer to cover the film by 1/4th inch might be a contributing problem. Bumping that up to at least 1/2" might help. When I tray develop film, I use a big tray and a lot of developer. I've never used a slosher, though. Imo, especially for film destined for digital printing, evenness of development is more important than promoting edge effects, at least it is up until any unevenness becomes unnoticeable.

I don't care about edge effects. Only even development. I can get even development in BTZS tubes. I get fine scratches from inserting and removing the film. The trouble with the slosher is that's 64 oz of developer for 6 sheets of film. 64 oz in BTZS tubes would do 32 sheets of film just fine, but in an open slosher tray, even covered between runs 6 sheets at a time, PCHD oxidizes long before you can get to 32 sheets-so it is far less economical. If I have to go to more developer forget it.

[Peter De Smidt]

I only mentioned edge effects because some people avoid continuous agitation on that basis, and I've heard that as an argument for slosher trays. (I use Jobo expert drums for sheet film, a continuous agitation method.) Have you tried traditional tray development, ala Fred Picker? I had good luck with that method with 4x5 before getting my Jobo. Otherwise, I agree that coming up with a better slosher looks like a good way forward.

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes, remember I have been doing sheet film since like 1976. There isn't much I haven't tried. First i did shuffle>hangers>Combi Plan>shuffle>BTZS>slosher>now back to BTZS until further testing with homemade slosher. I learned to dev. sheet film shuffle method then tried others and went back to it for ages and did it up to when I started scanning. Scanning however showed the weakness in the method-fine scratches. Still looking for the ultimate method.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Still looking for the ultimate method.I use Jobo Expert drums on a Jobo processor, which, while the "ultimate" for me, might not be yours. I've processed test sheets never loaded in a film holder to prove that any occasional minute base scratches weren't from the drums. Hypothesis confirmed -- they had to have been picked up when rubbing along lightly striated holder septums.

For a system that's absolutely free of contact with negatives' image areas (emulsion and base sides), this might be what you want:


http://www.alistairinglis.com/gas-burst-development/

[Kirk Gittings]

Looks good but from what I can see of it I don't have the room for it.

[J. Fada]

I am not convinced Pyrocat is all that great. I drank the cool aid for seven years but there were many anomalies along the way. Frustrated, I switched to Rodinal (1+50) in a Jobo 3010 and I have not had a single problem in the last year. My point to this Kirk is you may want to take a look at Pyrocat as a contributing factor to your problems.

You also may want to look into getting a Jobo although as you probably already know they are not cheap. I run mine on a Beseler motor base on which I rewired one of the switches to make it change direction. This works great and has a small footprint.

[tgtaylor]

+1 on the Jobo 3010.

Up until a year ago I processed all 4x5 B&W in Jobo tanks using the hand inversion method. But after switching to the 3010 I haven't looked back. Perfect results every time. Same results using the 2830 drum for 8x10 with the only drawback being that you can only process 2sheets at a time. But that is not a real problem at the moment because I take the 8x10 only for specific images and will shoot 2 negatives for each shot if I'm contemplating an alternative print and a silver. Of course that means 2 different processing runs but that wouldn't be aleviated by purchasing a 3005 drum (5 sheets) unless my production increased:)

I once considered the slosher but ruled it out because it took too much chemistry.

Thomas

[Kirk Gittings]

I am not convinced Pyrocat is all that great. I drank the cool aid for seven years but there were many anomalies along the way. Frustrated, I switched to Rodinal (1+50) in a Jobo 3010 and I have not had a single problem in the last year. My point to this Kirk is you may want to take a look at Pyrocat as a contributing factor to your problems.

You also may want to look into getting a Jobo although as you probably already know they are not cheap. I run mine on a Beseler motor base on which I rewired one of the switches to make it change direction. This works great and has a small footprint.

Thanks but I have 0 problems with PCHD in BTZS tubes (except the occasional scratching which I also had same with Tmax and Tmax RS dev.) I also ran a test with Xtol in the slosher with the same uneven issues so it is not the PCHD-its either the PF slosher design or my technique. Never really been interested in Jobo don't know why. Used to use Rodinal back in the 60's-not what I'm looking for anymore.

[ROL]

The open tray processing techniques will produce scratchless (if only LINTLESS – a different issue), well developed negatives, if the holding basket is thoughtfully designed. This slosher thing comes up occasionally both here and on APUG. A search should result in many intersting designs. 99¢ store rubberized and plastic self–modified dish racks have been used to make sloshers. IMO, the PF version is the worst design of the category, and you would be better off making your own.

I've also had inconsistent results with PCHD, and no longer use it.

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes the PF slosher is permanently retired. It was a gift from Gordon Hutchins so I guess I should hang on to it. I was a shuffler for twenty years until I scanned my film and saw how many scratches I was producing. When I get back from Chicago I will work on a homemade slosher.

FWIW, through some 500 sheets so far, I have found PCHD in Glycol from PF to be extremely consistent-used one shot in BTZS tubes, a very forgiving developer that produces the best negatives for scanning that I personally have ever done.

[Bob Darby]

I just dropped in to this form tonight as I saw the thread on Pyrocat & sloshers. I have just very recently started using Pyrocat & have not reached an opinion on it. However I have been using sloshers for about 20 years & I make them for John Sexton & his students.

I would like to describe my agitation technique as it works well for me. I load the film into the slosher & thenI presoak the film for 3 minutes. I move to the developer and using my thumb & fingers I "vibrate" the sloshers for 30 sec. After 30 sec I raise on end of the tray then the other taking about 5 sec. After another 30 sec I again "vibrate' the slosher for 5 sec. After another 30 sec I raise one corner of the slosher & then the opposite corner Another 30 sec then vibrate, another 30 & lift the corners you didn't last time. Then repeat. I do not lift the slosher out of the tray for the agitations.

You now have used "Vibrate", Lift ends "vibrate" Lift corners "vibrate" lift other corners & repeat. This will create 4 different wave patterns that have a randomness to them.

Many problems occur when we repeat the same agitation method for all our agitations. The use of film hangers with holes can be an example of over agitation, causing streaks by the holes.

[sanking]

Yes the PF slosher is permanently retired. It was a gift from Gordon Hutchins so I guess I should hang on to it. I was a shuffler for twenty years until I scanned my film and saw how many scratches I was producing. When I get back from Chicago I will work on a homemade slosher.

FWIW, through some 500 sheets so far, I have found PCHD in Glycol from PF to be extremely consistent-used one shot in BTZS tubes, a very forgiving developer that produces the best negatives for scanning that I personally have ever done.

Kirk,

Considering that you have gotten such good results with one-shot developer in BTZS tubes why are you considering switching to a slosher type system?

Sandy

[chris_4622]

He is getting scratches on the base side of the film.

[Peter De Smidt]

How about cutting pieces of vinyl window screening, probably the heavier pet resistant kind, a little bigger than the negative. Slide the film and screen with the screen between the BTZS tube and the film into the tube. Hopefully, this would avoid dragging the film back on anything that'll leave scratches.

The screen should allow solution to reach the back of the negative. If that's not important, a piece of thin, flexible plastic sheet might work.

[sanking]

How about cutting pieces of vinyl window screening, probably the heavier pet resistant kind, a little bigger than the negative. Slide the film and screen with the screen between the BTZS tube and the film into the tube. Hopefully, this would avoid dragging the film back on anything that'll leave scratches.

The screen should allow solution to reach the back of the negative. If that's not important, a piece of thin, flexible plastic sheet might work.

Another possible solution is to load the film wet, with the inside of the drum also pre-wetted. I use water with just a bit of drop photo-flo to wet out the film and drum.

The only time I have ever had scratches on the base side of the film when developing in BTZS tubes was when I loaded the film dry.

Sandy

[Andrew O'Neill]

I always dry load 8x10 and have never had scratching on the base side... I load veeeeeeeery carefully. I wet load 4x5 as it seems so much tighter going in... and out.

[sanking]

He is getting scratches on the base side of the film.

Sorry, guess I missed the thread starter!

Sandy

[Shawn Dougherty]

Kirk,
I also found I was getting slightly over developed corners when using my slosher tray from Photographer's Formulary.

I bought 4 of these wire baskets at T.J. Maxx last night for a total of $16. I strung stainless framing wire across the center and will be giving them a try tonight. The baskets are about 5x14 inches and I can fit two at a time in my 12x16 inch trays. This will allow me to develop four 4x5 negatives at once. Using two baskets will allow me to develop them for different times.

I'll report my progress.
Shawn