developing 4x5 with the yankee daylight development tank

[codyjgraham]

for the yankee daylight development tank, do you use the same time frame process ( like develop for about 8 minutes, depending on temp, then stop bath for 1 min then fixer for three then wash) or is it different?

[vinny]

different then say drums, reels, etc. No.

[Peter York]

Turn it into a planter, or film drying rack, or whatever. It is useless for development.

[codyjgraham]

i dont get why people on this site have such negative opinions about everything

im pretty sure i didnt ask if this was a good product......

[lenser]

Cody,

I've used one with ease for years and with good results. I've always followed the manufacturer's times on the film/developer instructions. Three things: bang the hell out of it a few times when you first pour in the developer to dislodge any air bells, and process in a relatively deep sink since you need to be pretty emphatic with your agitation and that often results in the liquid slopping over the top a bit. Also, agitate in the direction that the film lies across the tank so that you evenly bathe the film and don't risk having one of the edges slip out of the track due to pressure from the liquid.

Tim

[Peter York]

i dont get why people on this site have such negative opinions about everything

I have negative opinions of things that deserve negative opinions. Yes, I have tried the Yankee. It is now a film drying rack. IMHO, if you want uneven negatives, and waste a lot of chemistry in the process, then go for it. There are cheaper, better options. I picked up an 8x10 unidrum and roller for $2 at the local camera shop. It is infinitely better than the Yankee.

[Kuzano]

i dont get why people on this site have such negative opinions about everything

im pretty sure i didn't ask if this was a good product......

Cody, don't be so critical of the negative posts. They are not negative, although they are sometimes harshly worded and appear negative. They are generally warnings, and mostly from people who have had bad experiences.

Also, expecting people to read your post and adhere strictly to the questions you asked is somewhat optimistic on your part. These threads often break down over that issue. A misunderstanding about exactly what a poster asks, and the offering of assistance, even in the form of a warning may be a bit off the target of your question. It happens... and it happens all the time.

Now I was NOT going to jump in on this question, but over the years, I have had three Yankee tanks and finally concluded that they are pretty much worthless, but they were inexpensive or given to me at the time. And free or cheap is good in my book. But I still could not get them to work properly and it cost me a lot in chemicals and paper.

I have to add that this is one of the least negative and "pissy" forums I have participated in, and I have visited many and left them for that reason.

Please hang in there. This thread is one of the cleanest I have seen, and the warning from one poster is misconstrued on your part. You were harsh back in your response.

Yankee tanks obviously work for some, but for me they were messy and too restrictive, like learning to bump the air bubbles and agitate with such accuracy.

Something slightly automated on the agitation will be far better than a yankee tank.

[SpeedGraphicMan]

They work fine... Not the best but they work...

The problems most people have usually involve "Operator Error"! ;D

You would use it the same as say a Patterson tank.

Don't get to upset about negative answers... Remember that the rule of thumb with any forum is...

"Ask a question, get an opinion. Ask for an opinion and get an answer" ;D

[SpeedGraphicMan]

They work fine... Not the best but they work...

The problems most people have usually involve "Operator Error"! :rolleyes:

You would use it the same as say a Patterson tank.

Don't get too upset about negative answers... Remember that the rule of thumb with any forum is...

"Ask a question, get an opinion. Ask for an opinion and get an answer" ;)

[codyjgraham]

Cody,

I've used one with ease for years and with good results. I've always followed the manufacturer's times on the film/developer instructions. Three things: bang the hell out of it a few times when you first pour in the developer to dislodge any air bells, and process in a relatively deep sink since you need to be pretty emphatic with your agitation and that often results in the liquid slopping over the top a bit. Also, agitate in the direction that the film lies across the tank so that you evenly bathe the film and don't risk having one of the edges slip out of the track due to pressure from the liquid.

Tim

thanks for the good advice ill let you know how things go tonight :)

[codyjgraham]

Cody, don't be so critical of the negative posts. They are not negative, although they are sometimes harshly worded and appear negative. They are generally warnings, and mostly from people who have had bad experiences.

Also, expecting people to read your post and adhere strictly to the questions you asked is somewhat optimistic on your part. These threads often break down over that issue. A misunderstanding about exactly what a poster asks, and the offering of assistance, even in the form of a warning may be a bit off the target of your question. It happens... and it happens all the time.

Now I was NOT going to jump in on this question, but over the years, I have had three Yankee tanks and finally concluded that they are pretty much worthless, but they were inexpensive or given to me at the time. And free or cheap is good in my book. But I still could not get them to work properly and it cost me a lot in chemicals and paper.

I have to add that this is one of the least negative and "pissy" forums I have participated in, and I have visited many and left them for that reason.

Please hang in there. This thread is one of the cleanest I have seen, and the warning from one poster is misconstrued on your part. You were harsh back in your response.

Yankee tanks obviously work for some, but for me they were messy and too restrictive, like learning to bump the air bubbles and agitate with such accuracy.

Something slightly automated on the agitation will be far better than a yankee tank.

i apologize, it was more backlash from another post i made where 85% of the post were just mean posts about the photographer and not the quesiton

[Heroique]

Hi Cody, “85%-negative” qualifies as a polite thread around here – a tough playground!

Me, I’m a proud (former) user of the Yankee tank...

Many years ago, I migrated to open tray processing – and will never go back – but some of my best negatives came from that ol’ Yankee tank.

When I stopped using it, I sold the tank on CL for $15 – but kept the rack for Type-55 clearing in a small painter’s bucket. Then, when Type-55 went away, I sold the rack for $10 on CL. I almost got back from two sales what I spent on the purchase!

The upshot, as I see it: The Yankee tank works well within its limitations, if you’re careful and match it w/ suitable objectives. And it sounds like that’s what you’re trying to do. Most people who curse the tank haven’t used it right and project their anger on a neutral piece of plastic. It deserves better. ;^)

-----
Psst – use every other slot, not all of them at once!

[codyjgraham]

Hi Cody, “85%-negative” qualifies as a polite thread around here – a tough playground!

Me, I’m a proud (former) user of the Yankee tank...

Many years ago, I migrated to open tray processing – and will never go back – but some of my best negatives came from that ol’ Yankee tank.

When I stopped using it, I sold the tank on CL for $15 – but kept the rack for Type-55 clearing in a small painter’s bucket. Then, when Type-55 went away, I sold the rack for $10 on CL. I almost got back from two sales what I spent on the purchase!

The upshot, as I see it: The Yankee tank works well within its limitations, if you’re careful and match it w/ suitable objectives. And it sounds like that’s what you’re trying to do. Most people who curse the tank haven’t used it right and project their anger on a neutral piece of plastic. It deserves better. ;^)

-----
Psst – use every other slot, not all of them at once!

well i developed them and they came out awesome :) ill try to post them sometime, like tonight or tomorrow :) theyre drying right now

[Jody_S]

I find it works better using semi-stand developing, 100:1 or 200:1 developer, 20-30 minute times with perhaps 3 agitations. I agitate by lifting the film rack out of the tank, much like you would with stainless hangers. Obviously in darkness, but as soon as I replace the lid I can turn the light back on. I agitate fairly vigorously for the first few seconds, or else I do a pre-soak for 20 minutes.

[Kuzano]

i apologize, it was more backlash from another post i made where 85% of the post were just mean posts about the photographer and not the quesiton

You need not apologize, and in retrospect I regretted a couple of things I said to you. I was not applying for an apology.

I know exactly what you say about the high numbers of negative posts on some forums. In fact I have two right now that are so bad, I am closing my memberships out.

This forum is not generally like that, but it does happen occasionally.

Hope you have good experience with your photography and the forum in general.

Lars

[Leigh]

...or else I do a pre-soak for 20 minutes.
Wow. I've heard of stand development, but never stand soak. :eek:

Why would you soak for 20 minutes? The water would fully infiltrate the emulsion in a few seconds.

- Leigh

[Dan Henderson]

I am a devotee of Yankee tanks. I think they work great, at least for my style of developing, which is with low frequency agitation. I use whatever time/temp is called for, with no variations because of the tank. I agitate using a back and forth motion as directed on the tank lid, and as someone mentioned, sometimes you do get a bit of slopover, but I don't agitate as vigorously as the previous poster must. Just a gently back and forth of the tank is all that is required.

I also don't understand the negative comments about Yankee tanks. They are relatively inexpensive, load easily, and are straightforward to use. People sing praises of the Combi tank, yet I read about them being finicky to load and operate, and that some parts break easily. And when they were made they were a lot more expensive than Yankees. But I've never used one, so what do I know? To each his/her own.

[codyjgraham]

I am a devotee of Yankee tanks. I think they work great, at least for my style of developing, which is with low frequency agitation. I use whatever time/temp is called for, with no variations because of the tank. I agitate using a back and forth motion as directed on the tank lid, and as someone mentioned, sometimes you do get a bit of slopover, but I don't agitate as vigorously as the previous poster must. Just a gently back and forth of the tank is all that is required.

I also don't understand the negative comments about Yankee tanks. They are relatively inexpensive, load easily, and are straightforward to use. People sing praises of the Combi tank, yet I read about them being finicky to load and operate, and that some parts break easily. And when they were made they were a lot more expensive than Yankees. But I've never used one, so what do I know? To each his/her own.


so far my experience is good :)

[Brian C. Miller]

I started out developing sheet film in a Yankee tank. I never got even development from it. The problems are evident when there are large patches of blank sky, or similar blank space. I finally tested it by first photographing a plain wall.

I tried two methods: lifting the cage up and down, and agitating back and forth according to the arrows.
When I lifted the cage up and down, I got surge marks due to the shape of the slots.
When I agitated back and forth, I got different development between the top and the bottom.

I finally gave up on the Yankee tank, and went to Jobo processing. When I don't want to fill the Jobo (one or two sheets) I use a single-sheet slosher I made and a 5x7 tray.

Your mileage may vary, but do test it by developing something with lots of sky, or a big blank wall in it.

[Jody_S]

Some of the film I've been using has something blue on it that gets into my developer and seems to reduce it's life. If I pre-soak, or pre-wash with gentle running water, this blue crap gets washed away before I develop. I do re-use my developer (max 1 or 2 days) for multiple formats, so I've started doing this pre-soak on most. It's not tedious if I'm developing 35mm and 120, say, while I do the pre-soak on my 4x5s.

[Leigh]

Some of the film I've been using has something blue on it that gets into my developer and seems to reduce it's life. If I pre-soak, or pre-wash with gentle running water, this blue crap gets washed away before I develop.
That's just the anti-halation dye on the back of the film dissolving, as it's designed to do.
It will discolor the first liquid used, whether it be pre-soak or developer.

This is absolutely normal. It happens with all films (except x-ray film), and is of no consequence whatsoever.

It's chemically inert and will not affect any photographic chemistry. The color will vary with the particular film in use, but it's irrelevant.

- Leigh

[Leigh]

I am a devotee of Yankee tanks. I think they work great...
I too like the Yankee tank. The overall design of the tank is well thought out and it's very easy to use.

I have experienced some uneven development, but I attribute that entirely to operator malfunction. :D

- Leigh

[Jody_S]

That's just the anti-halation dye on the back of the film dissolving, as it's designed to do.
It will discolor the first liquid used, whether it be pre-soak or developer.

This is absolutely normal. It happens with all films (except x-ray film), and is of no consequence whatsoever.

It's chemically inert and will not affect any photographic chemistry. The color will vary with the particular film in use, but it's irrelevant.

- Leigh

I know about anti-halation layers, in fact I've wondered if I could improvise one on the X-ray film I've been using. I'm talking about some blue goop that turns my developer deep sky blue, and really does take 20 minutes to wash off. It's not conventional film. I'm not entirely sure what it is, possibly a color-separation film from the motion picture industry. It quite possibly is an anti-halation layer, but an extremely dense one designed for use in unconventional exposure situations.

[codyjgraham]

77714777157771677717

heres my first 4x5 shots developed in the yankee :)

[Jody_S]

77714777157771677717

heres my first 4x5 shots developed in the yankee :)

What film are you using? I don't think I've ever seen notches quite like that. And #4 could be quite good, with a little work.

[codyjgraham]

What film are you using? I don't think I've ever seen notches quite like that. And #4 could be quite good, with a little work.



Ilford hp4, the "scans" are quite crapy, its just a picture of a negative on a softbox app on my ipad... but thanks :)

[SergeiR]

That's just the anti-halation dye on the back of the film dissolving, as it's designed to do.
It will discolor the first liquid used, whether it be pre-soak or developer.

This is absolutely normal. It happens with all films (except x-ray film), and is of no consequence whatsoever.

It's chemically inert and will not affect any photographic chemistry. The color will vary with the particular film in use, but it's irrelevant.

- Leigh

And freaks me out every time i try some new sheet film :))

But i do agree - they are ok as intermediate solution. I have one as well as HP tank and both are kinda drying stations now, but i used them till i got Jobo b/c tray development isn't for me, apparently.

[E. von Hoegh]

I have negative opinions of things that deserve negative opinions. Yes, I have tried the Yankee. It is now a film drying rack. IMHO, if you want uneven negatives, and waste a lot of chemistry in the process, then go for it. There are cheaper, better options. I picked up an 8x10 unidrum and roller for $2 at the local camera shop. It is infinitely better than the Yankee.

Yes, the yankee is indeed crapola. Fill it with cement and use it as a canoe anchor. I use a Nikor 4x5 tank.

[jermaineB]

Well I like it so far...used mine for the first time this past weekend doing a stand development for an hour with HC-110 and slow agitation back forth for the first minute. I had even development with no problem although I only processed 2 sheets instead of six so I'm not sure if that will make a difference. I'll post my results later.

[jermaineB]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8429/7634312164_71b15c7729_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabdab/7634312164/)
JTNP (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabdab/7634312164/) by bsharp# (http://www.flickr.com/people/jabdab/), on Flickr

My example from the HP-Combi Tank. I think I overexposed a little, but it worked fine.

[codyjgraham]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8429/7634312164_71b15c7729_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabdab/7634312164/)
JTNP (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabdab/7634312164/) by bsharp# (http://www.flickr.com/people/jabdab/), on Flickr

My example from the HP-Combi Tank. I think I overexposed a little, but it worked fine.

its not that over exposed, you have a nice range of tones, from blackest black to almost white!

[E. von Hoegh]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8429/7634312164_71b15c7729_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabdab/7634312164/)
JTNP (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabdab/7634312164/) by bsharp# (http://www.flickr.com/people/jabdab/), on Flickr

My example from the HP-Combi Tank. I think I overexposed a little, but it worked fine.

That's interesting, it has almost an infrared-esque look. I think you could work that up to a very nice print.

[mandoman7]

That's a nice shot of the desert, if a little over-exposed, but its not a good test of your developer methods. The books advise using a smooth, out of focus, solid toned area to see if the development is really smooth, but you can often tell from blank sky areas if your methods are producing even toned results. In Cody's shot of the girl, it looks to me like the lighter areas around the edge of the negative are from uneven development, where the developer is moving more vigorously around the edges of the negatives during agitation. This is the shortcoming of both the Yankee and the HP Combi, and tanks in general; the possibility of increased edge development. The movement of developer over a negative must be the same over the entire surface or you will get slight localized increases in development. That produces the light toned vignetting you see on a lot of work.

[jermaineB]

Thanks for the compliments. I wish I had a my 90mm lens instead of the 210mm I had at the time because of the curved bark. I also think if I had a 29 filter I may have been able to darken the sky. Since I was my first development I just kind of experimented. I also have a Jobo processor that I haven't used yet. I'll test and see if there's a difference between the two processes.

[jermaineB]

That's interesting, it has almost an infrared-esque look. I think you could work that up to a very nice print.

I wish I could make a wet print from it but I don't own a LF enlarger...only 35 and medium format. Maybe one day when I have a collection of negatives and saved chemistry and someone decides to part with 4x5 enlarger for cheap ; )

[Ian]

It is an age since the last posts on this thread. I still home develop my own B&W and Colour film, from the 110 cartridge of old, through to large format 4x5.

For my 4x5 film developing I have used various systems/tanks and have found that used correctly, (and with practice) they all have there merits. This thread is appears to be about the 4x5 Yankee daylight developing tank, I will restrict my 1st post to my experience with it, and it will be short but positive.

A great piece of kit, use it! The only negative comment I will make is that agitation can cause the chemicals to 'slop' out of the top slot. So, my solution was to make a liquid tight top cap to put over the pouring slot; now no worries!

One more comment regarding the Yankee, placing the lid on the tank is counter intuitive. By that I mean that when positioning the lid, do not match the corner lips, rather position the lids protruding lip to the opposite corner to the tanks protruding lid. It makes a tight fit, I also add two rubber bands around the lid and tank for extra security, (probably not required, but I do it just in case!).

So, those who use it as plant pot, :rolleyes: are missing a trick, and good system.:)

[xkaes]

Yankee made at least TWO 4x5 tanks that can be used for processing. One is the Yankee Agi-Tank which comes with a 4x5 multi-sheet holder and HARD top. That appears to be the one being discussed here. They also made a Yankee Utility Tank with a black, FLEXIBLE cap, and uses hanging film holders. I have both. I use the Agi-Tanks for the chemical steps, but use the Utility Tanks for intermediate and final rinsing/clearing/washing.

And I use the Yankee Master Developing tank for smaller formats since they have both adjustable 35mm/120/127/620 reels and 16mm/35mm reels (the latter are EASILY modified to accept Minox) -- and allows me to process DIFFERENT-sized smaller rolls AT THE SAME TIME!

[dsphotog]

When I use the agi-tank I apply a strip of masking tape around the lid (except the corner with the drain) to keep the liquid from sloshing out during agitation. Much more tidy.

[Ian]

When I use the agi-tank I apply a strip of masking tape around the lid (except the corner with the drain) to keep the liquid from sloshing out during agitation. Much more tidy.

Good idea. A question for you, how do you orient the lid, with the lips on tank & lid in same corner, or opposite corners?

[esearing]

I have the Yankee tank, an earlier bakelite version FR tank, and the newer SP445. When I was processing six or more sheets the FR tank was my favorite over the Yankee, and neither gave me development problems with normal agitation. The FR tank sloshes less than the Yankee and is slightly easier to load for some reason. For single sheet semi-stand development I prefer the newer SP445 tank.

[dsphotog]

Good idea. A question for you, how do you orient the lid, with the lips on tank & lid in same corner, or opposite corners?

Same corner.