Large developing trays for roll paper 47" wide

[simonbrismo]

I'm searching for large developing trays that can swallow paper with the width of 47". Happy to get to know where I can buy em?

[Kirk Gittings]

Talk to Bob Carnie.

[frotog]

No one manufactures trays like this. Instead of trying to make them yourself have a sheet metal job shop make them out of s.s. - acrylic and fiberglass weigh too much. Ask for beveled edges - will make scrolling easier. Mine are a little over 50" long x 10" wide x 3" deep and are designed to work with one gallon of working chemistry.

[ROL]

Well, if Bob doesn't weigh in to correct me, the ones I've seen in his postings seem to be as mine, the largest Cesco's available, and they are tight with 42" rolls. I need 2 gallons of chemistry in mine to get minimum coverage. frotog is probably correct that you may have to make your own a la Clyde Butcher (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCN_WQeEKnc).

[Jim Noel]

Make a frame of wood, cover it with plastic and get to work. I hve used them like this up to 6' wide.

[Kirk Gittings]

FWIW we used to make large troughs for "rolling" processing large prints. We made a frame of 2x4s and put thick vinyl into it and staples it to the frame.

[ROL]

I've never succeeded reliably in rolling and transporting mural sizes of fiber paper through 4 or 5 changes of chemistry without crimping, folding, or otherwise injuring the emulsion. RC plastics are easy to do though.

[Daniel Stone]

You can get a rough idea of what these guys are talking about in the beginning of this short video below:


http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=EvnaPZWrt9E

Dan

[Greg Blank]

I would prefer one large SS tray that drains out the bottom, so the wet paper does not need to be moved. The tray however would rock on a spindle welded on the center point forming a hinge so the whole tray will allow agitation. Timing pouring and draining chemistry is less an issue than crimping a large expensive sheet of exposed paper.

[frotog]

Unless custom, commercially available drkrm sinks will only fit two mural trays. Use the first for dev. and fill the second with stop. Have your gallon of fix ready to go after manually dumping the one-shot stop. Having one tray with a tap as suggested by Greg would lead to excessively slow chemistry exchanges which would introduce all kinds of unnecessary problems. Also, processing flat will inevitably lead to a crimped print - even if you're using just one tray - most likely during agitation and most definitely in removing the flat print from the tray. There's a reason to scroll - simple tools and a modicum of technique will yield the best results.

[bob carnie]

Go to a plastics distributer, they can weld trays to your specs, not cheap but if you want to do it without issues one of the only ways to go.
otherwise as Kirk points out make large holding tanks and scroll .. I scroll 30 inch by 10 ft here all the time.
A single large tray for final hypo toning wash will be required .

for print heights 47 " by longer widths these trays will not fit small darkrooms and tiny budgets, if you have the room and cash give me a call as funny enough a friend of mine in Vancouver
is making much larger trays right now and you may be able to jump on his order.

[frotog]

Actually, while having two trays set up side by side is nice, if you work carefully only a single tray is needed in which case the op would need a sink a bit over 50" long and at least 18" deep (6" of extra width for gallon containers holding the rest of the processing baths). Using the dev. and stop as one-shots means you'll be manually dumping the tray after every step of your process. This is not a bad thing as it guarantees consistent chemistry activity - an essential aspect to getting to the fine print with large material. I see investing in a s.s. tray as a necessity, especially if working in a small space. At school where I learned mural technique we had the job shop weld half-inch acrylic sheet. They were heavy, slippery, sharp-edged and retained chemistry due to the double walling needed to make them stiff. I can't imagine working in acrylic is much cheaper than s.s. But certainly if you do go custom, your best off working with a local sheet metal job shop to avoid high shipping costs. I got four like the one pictured for less than a grand. They are a joy to work with. The gymnastics mat that it's set against was ideal for preprocessing warm-ups.82904

[bob carnie]

I will need to strongly disagree about the single tray method single shot ... which I believe is a poor concept even a small sizes, but completely impractical at large sizes.

In theory sounds great in practice not so great. cost, damage, contamination is only the beginning.

Where do I begin,,, chemistry to make a mural is in the gallons not small quantities, you need lots of chemistry to get on the paper for even development. = $$$$$ if single shot
Draining the chemicals is a major whoopass, try lifting a tray full of chemicals, how does one plan to get all the chems out fast enough and without sucking the paper down the drain at the same time...There is a reason for a stop bath and for those of us printing all the time with a time temp method a quick stop to development is required.
Each time you do a test strip, print , you will have to clean up the trays not to contaminate the next run.
For those giving a single tray advice I would say (have you done it before , with great success? if so I would like to be enlightened as I print for a living and these kind of details do not slip past me unnoticed. I make 30 x40 and larger every month for the last 15 years and this single tray method really sounds like bad advice}

I am being a bit of a d.... head here but I am only interested in hearing replys from those who actually do murals with a single tray and can honestly say they can get a
decent print for exhibition .




Actually, while having two trays set up side by side is nice, if you work carefully only a single tray is needed in which case the op would need a sink a bit over 50" long and at least 18" deep (6" of extra width for gallon containers holding the rest of the processing baths). Using the dev. and stop as one-shots means you'll be manually dumping the tray after every step of your process. This is not a bad thing as it guarantees consistent chemistry activity - an essential aspect to getting to the fine print with large material. I see investing in a s.s. tray as a necessity, especially if working in a small space. At school where I learned mural technique we had the job shop weld half-inch acrylic sheet. They were heavy, slippery, sharp-edged and retained chemistry due to the double walling needed to make them stiff. I can't imagine working in acrylic is much cheaper than s.s. But certainly if you do go custom, your best off working with a local sheet metal job shop to avoid high shipping costs. I got four like the one pictured for less than a grand. They are a joy to work with. The gymnastics mat that it's set against was ideal for preprocessing warm-ups.82904

[frotog]

I am being a bit of a d.... head here but I am only interested in hearing replys from those who actually do murals with a single tray and can honestly say they can get a
decent print for exhibition .

Bob, I've already stated that the one tray method was what I used for years before moving into my current drkrm. I printed several shows during that time and some of those prints were purchased by leading collectors and a few of them have ended up in permanent museum collections. These prints were no better than murals I've made using multiple trays. The one tray method yields a few small constraints that makes having a two tray set up moderately more convenient (namely having an extra one gallon graduate filled with stop in the sink) but it's otherwise a perfectly valid technique that has some surprising benefits. I'm sorry that this disturbs you to the extent that you doubt the veracity of my claim and that this experience makes you feel like a d.... head. Nonetheless, if you think that yours is the only valid technique you'll be interested in what I have to say. But please keep in mind that my interest in posting is simply to assist the op in making the appropriate choices to print murals in a common darkroom with limited space, not to take away from your business or reputation as a printer. I've since moved on from printing for others (thank goodness) and no longer have any skin in this game.

The tray I've pictured weighs just under 20lbs and measures 52" x 16" x 3". With a gallon of chemistry it weighs an additional 8-1/2 lbs and it's stiff and easy to handle. The beveled edges, in addition to providing comfortable support for your taking and receiving rolls of the paper scroll, make for a very convenient spout. I'm not sure about you but lifting this amount of weight is not a big deal. A large one gallon sized funnel attached to the sink's drain makes for fast and clean dumping of chemistry. I leave the roll of paper in the tray when dumping chemistry (don't worry, it won't fall out) - ne'er a problem there - but make sure to lift the roll out of the tray when introducing the stop bath. My chemistry exchange times using this method are never longer than 10 seconds - no problem there either.

Making tests is not as difficult as you think. I put fix in the mural tray and than use 16x20's resting on top of the s.s. mural tray to process my test strips. Easy peasy baby - don't get excited.

Lastly, contrary to what Bob says you do not need a lot of chemistry to get even development. One gallon of working dektol will have enough activity to develop two 42x60's that will be indistinguishable from one another in terms of amount of development (1 lt. working solution will have capacity for 2,560 sq. inches of paper - 42x60 = 2,520 sq. inches). Beyond chemistry capacity any issues with uneven development are due to poor technique - namely failing to wet the leading edge of the paper before beginning your scroll. As for the actual depth of chemistry.... one gallon is enough chemistry to give me a depth of about an inch. I've found that minimal chemistry reduces drag making for a more constant agitation than you would otherwise experience trying to drag it through a deeper trough. Also, if the bath is too deep there will be a greater amount of chemistry within the cylinder thereby increasing the chances of crimping or damaging the print.

Capiche?

And for all the naysayers....if you're friendly, I welcome you to stop by for a real time demonstration and (apparently) a much needed demystification of this process.

[bob carnie]

Frotog

All my comments were directed at single tray NON scrolling method, where the tray is bigger than the print size and one processes the paper flat. I was assuming that is what you were referring too and it is obvious that I did not read your post well enough , I apologize for that. After re - reading your post I see pretty much what I use , but I call them troughs, as opposed to tray.

Reading my posts you will see I do use a scrolling method as well , but I use 3 troughs that you refer to but use much more chemicals ( 40 liters per trough) as in a typical day we somtimes output 100 ft of 30 inch paper scrolled of the lambda and single trays for post development .. ie second fix flat tray, hypo flat tray and wash. These troughs would be impossible to dump unless of course I had the incredible Hulk as my assistant. As well with that type of paper usage we need the volumne and we need to replenish after each 10 ft run of paper. Btw that is a lot of paper and the only way we can do this is by using a rip unit on the lambda to auto nest the paper and we pull 10 ft at a time to keep consisten scrolling method with 3min 40 second scroll time.

So with clarification, if you are using a single tray method that is larger than the paper , and you are actually printing murals which I define as 24 x30 and up my comments above stand .
When I am working under an enlarger making single prints I use 40 x 50 x 3" trays full of chemicals and I have 8 of these in a row , plus a much larger wash sink. * I am having a vertical
slot washer made that can handle 8 -30 x40 at a time which btw is about the best I can do in a single day , 4 negatives two final prints off each. Toning is done on a separate day.

If you are not using a flat tray for final wash with constant water and dumping, I wonder how one would get a good fix and wash... why do I ask ??? when I first started the scrolling method I tested the retained fix in the paper and found unacceptable levels with normal scrolling... the only way I brought the levels to archival standard was by extensive scrolling in each final fix , hypo and wash which at the end of the day battered the paper beyond acceptable levels for me to sell to my clients.

A major lab in Europe, started doing Lambda silver prints in a Hostetter processor which is transporting the paper like scrolling through a series of baths, they were assured by the manufacturer that they would be getting proper archival standards. They DID NOT take the paper and second fix, wash in a tray. The show was hung in a space and within months the prints started yellowing.
Large paper sheets do not like extended lengths of time in liquid, they get very soft and fragile , and in the case of the new Art 300 the edges start frilling with extended washing.

This leads me conclude- the minimum amount of scrolling which does stress the paper , and as much gentle flat tray processing as possible, with keeping up with the same archival standards as one would apply to 16 x20 prints, is what I strive to balance for.

I do know that there are those who can put a kids swimming pool together and without proper enlarging equipment hang prints on a wall and call them art...But my comments are directed at the OP who is considering 47 inch wide prints and trays that obviously put him in an area of darkroom printing not for the simple one afternoon excursion.
In a past thread someone mentioned developing by moon light in huge trays in the backyard with a canopy over the trays .

A second room not in the darkroom is also a very serious option, with water supply and drain , one could expose in the common darkroom and process in the other. I did this for the first year of doing lambda fibres. We used BGM colour labs lambda with Agfa Classic , exposed the paper, drove the paper in a light tight box 10 km to my darkroom and processed the paper using the methods I described .
A second room idea was used by many large labs in the 50's and 60's .

Another method worth considering is a large sheet of plexi with slanted in a tray with drain that is connected to buckets with a pump to spray on the developer. I have heard of
people doing this in their bathrooms and setting up the enlarger in a spare bedroom.

All these will yield an acceptable prints > Yes I am answering this from a professional viewpoint which I do not apologize for and I also invite naysayers and I don't care if they are friendly or not,
to visit us one day while we are set up for murals and see how we make mural prints.




Bob, I've already stated that the one tray method was what I used for years before moving into my current drkrm. I printed several shows during that time and some of those prints were purchased by leading collectors and a few of them have ended up in permanent museum collections. These prints were no better than murals I've made using multiple trays. The
Capiche?

And for all the naysayers....if you're friendly, I welcome you to stop by for a real time demonstration and (apparently) a much needed demystification of this process.

[nolindan]

Well, there is Lloyd Erlick, in Toronto, who uses a single flat tray technique, though only for up to 24x30:

http://www.heylloyd.com/technicl/single.htm

I've not tried it myself.

[bob carnie]

I have heard of Lloyd and his single tray method but not sure he does murals which seems to be the OP's interest , but in the last twenty years have not seen his prints exhibited in Toronto so I cannot
comment on his prints.

Well, there is Lloyd Erlick, in Toronto, who uses a single flat tray technique, though only for up to 24x30:

http://www.heylloyd.com/technicl/single.htm

I've not tried it myself.

[nolindan]

I have heard of Lloyd ... in the last twenty years have not seen his prints exhibited in Toronto ...

I don't know what happened to him. The last internet activity was 2009 or so. The web site is still up, and googling shows he's still in the phone directory.

Anybody have any recent news?

His work can be seen here: http://www.heylloyd.com/toc.htm

As you say, it would be hard to see his single tray method working for a 4-foot mural.

[AF-ULF]

A bit off topic: I use the single tray method for printing platinum prints on full sheets of watercolor paper. I do this out of necessity as I have not found a way to transfer the large, wet sheets without tearing them. That should not be a concern with enlarging papers, however.

[ROL]

Also, processing flat will inevitably lead to a crimped print - even if you're using just one tray - most likely during agitation and most definitely in removing the flat print from the tray

Patently untrue. Processing flat up to any size you can carefully handle is perfectly safe. I do it all the time. My prints are not crimped and entirely free of emulsion defects (other than the lousy images contained therein :p). Appreciating that the OP has actually questioned a larger 47", the functional limit for me in my lab for both enlarging and processing, as well as presentation, is 42" maximum. At a healthy 38"x19'12", I designed my sink (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/a-darkroom-portrait#processsinkfar) (self–built) to be large enough to accommodate five of Cesco's largest trays end-to-end, fully capable of routinely processing 30"x40" prints, in the exact manner that I do standard sheet sizes (smaller trays). I do reuse water stop and rinse trays during toning and hypo–clearing.

I would like to see Bob's rolling method though.

[frotog]

Frotog

All my comments were directed at single tray NON scrolling method, where the tray is bigger than the print size and one processes the paper flat. I was assuming that is what you were referring too and it is obvious that I did not read your post well enough , I apologize for that. After re - reading your post I see pretty much what I use , but I call them troughs, as opposed to tray.

Reading my posts you will see I do use a scrolling method as well , but I use 3 troughs that you refer to but use much more chemicals ( 40 liters per trough) as in a typical day we somtimes output 100 ft of 30 inch paper scrolled of the lambda and single trays for post development .. ie second fix flat tray, hypo flat tray and wash. These troughs would be impossible to dump unless of course I had the incredible Hulk as my assistant. As well with that type of paper usage we need the volumne and we need to replenish after each 10 ft run of paper. Btw that is a lot of paper and the only way we can do this is by using a rip unit on the lambda to auto nest the paper and we pull 10 ft at a time to keep consisten scrolling method with 3min 40 second scroll time.

So with clarification, if you are using a single tray method that is larger than the paper , and you are actually printing murals which I define as 24 x30 and up my comments above stand .
When I am working under an enlarger making single prints I use 40 x 50 x 3" trays full of chemicals and I have 8 of these in a row , plus a much larger wash sink. * I am having a vertical
slot washer made that can handle 8 -30 x40 at a time which btw is about the best I can do in a single day , 4 negatives two final prints off each. Toning is done on a separate day.

If you are not using a flat tray for final wash with constant water and dumping, I wonder how one would get a good fix and wash... why do I ask ??? when I first started the scrolling method I tested the retained fix in the paper and found unacceptable levels with normal scrolling... the only way I brought the levels to archival standard was by extensive scrolling in each final fix , hypo and wash which at the end of the day battered the paper beyond acceptable levels for me to sell to my clients.

A major lab in Europe, started doing Lambda silver prints in a Hostetter processor which is transporting the paper like scrolling through a series of baths, they were assured by the manufacturer that they would be getting proper archival standards. They DID NOT take the paper and second fix, wash in a tray. The show was hung in a space and within months the prints started yellowing.
Large paper sheets do not like extended lengths of time in liquid, they get very soft and fragile , and in the case of the new Art 300 the edges start frilling with extended washing.

This leads me conclude- the minimum amount of scrolling which does stress the paper , and as much gentle flat tray processing as possible, with keeping up with the same archival standards as one would apply to 16 x20 prints, is what I strive to balance for.

Sheesh Bob, did you really not comprehend that my mural printing technique is to scroll?! Maybe it's time to look into that higher CFM fan for your darkroom?

All kidding aside our techniques are basically the same except I am able to accomplish finished professional results with one tray instead of a whole slew of trays. And please, I'm not talking about the DIY spray-it-down-with-a-hose-in-the-backyard-at-night results but rather the archivally-processed, blemish-free print that my clients expect for $600. And as such I maintain that with proper technique this is very doable without the significant expenditure that you maintain is necessary. I've carefully thought this technique through and have done it successfully for a long time and so have very little interest in making it more complex than it has to be.

A few observations based on what you've written above...

Scrolling, washing and handling the print... I think we can agree that the reasons to scroll rather than process flat is to avoid process handling issues - crimping, folding, tearing, etc. I'm sure there are people out there who've made crimp-free murals without having to scroll. Good for you. I'll pass for the reasons I've already enumerated, thank you.

I completely understand the desire to be hands-off whenever possible and I too would devise a work-flow with deep tanks for washing if I were still doing this commercially (I'd do this for inter-arrival times in my workflow, not because of material handling problems). But this is hardly a necessity to achieve successful, archival results. Nor do you need multiple trays to accomplish an archivally processed print. A second fix, hypo and an hour wash are standard practice for archival processing. My one tray process is no different in this regard.

Bob, I'm struck by your rather long processing time for your 10'x30". Is 3'40" what you would use with a smaller print? Do you need this amount of time to achieve even development? My guess is that with the depth of your baths you're experiencing increased drag which slows down scrolling time considerably due to the added resistance. This would also explain your results of "paper battered beyond acceptable levels". Or maybe it's those fingerless former loggers you've plucked from the canook hinterland and transformed into labrats? Tell them to try a shallower bath and a gentler touch if they still have feeling in their hands.

[bob carnie]

Frotog

nope I did not read your post correctly and I jumped on your post and really should not have. My point of view or observations are on large single trays that hold mural paper flat.
One of my pet peeves is the single tray method of printing, I just see too many issues with it.

FYI I do both methods of processing mural paper, scrolling in troughs as seemingly you do, and large tray 40 x50 x 3 inch.
The large amount of chemistry I use for scrolling is based on running up to 10 - 30 x120 inch sheets of paper in a given day and I use the larger amount of chemistry's so as not to pooch out half way(as stated I also replenish after every 10 ft of paper).
I do not think my scrolling time is long to get through 10 ft- about 30 seconds and then I have completely scrolled through - I lift up and rotate and scroll again.
I chose 3.40 min as my time due to balancing out a 21 step wedge that I have to balance each time I run this scrolling method. I use a longer time for murals print than regular small
prints as normal practice which is a about 2.30 seconds.

Second FYI- if you use a small flat tray 40 x 50 x3 inch to process 30 x40 murals your paper size is actually 33 x44 inches to allow for magnets to hold the paper down during exposure.

Now visualize how one would get the paper in the tray, making sure that chemicals will completely cover the emulsion and you can start rocking the tray within 15 seconds so as to not create flow marks.
now if you can visualize that , think about how deep the chemicals need to be in that tray to accomodate that 15 second criteria of getting fresh chemicals over the whole image and agitating to avoid flow marking.
Once you have calculated how deep the chemicals are in the tray, with consideration that I print all day and not in a evening , and I cannot think of anyone wanting to do murals in a small amount of time, you will see that the depth of chemicals is about 2 inches minimum to accomplish ones goals.

now if one is thinking of single tray development where you need to dump and fill to accomplish ones goals like lets say platinum printing, visualize how one would do this within the 15 second timeline . Also with some fancy math calculations you will find that you are mixing minimum 25 liters of chemicals to do the above. Now visualize putting 25 liters of water in a very long and wide tray and lifting that sucker.
What you will find is that unless the Incredible Hulk is standing next to you mere mortals like myself cannot dead lift that amount of water in a tray without spilling out the whole amount, let alone not damage the print while one is doing it , as well not create an incredible mess in the darkroom...If this sounds illogical fill the 20 x24 tray one has in the darkroom to the lip with water and dead lift it and pour into any container. When I was first starting out I could almost do this , 25 years later I would be lucky to pour out half the tray properly.



Both methods done correctly Trough or Tray will give dimple free prints , archival prints , but for the OP he/she should be very calculating before actually trying it or a lot of wasted money could end up in the trash can.

[sanking]

One of my pet peeves is the single tray method of printing, I just see too many issues with it.


Bob,

I have used single tray method (one print at a time) for printing kallitype, vandyke and platinum/palladium and it works great. Every stage is followed by a wash cycle to remove chemicals from the previous step so there should be no cross-contamination. If processing is done correctly there are really no issues with single tray method, other than the fact that you are limited to processing one print at a time. In my work I used a 16X20 tray to make prints up to about 12X18, and that is about as large as I would want to go with single tray method in my work space. I did at one time make some 20X24" print in a 23" X 33" tray but that was complicated and messy.

Sandy

[bob carnie]

Yes I have seen you do this on various occasions, I am addressing most if not all my comments to silver printing and image size over 20 x24. I have the luxury of tons of trays and space, which can make up for a lot of issues.
For silver I see a lot of washing of trays to make sure no contamination even with small trays .


Bob,

I have used single tray method (one print at a time) for printing kallitype, vandyke and platinum/palladium and it works great. Every stage is followed by a wash cycle to remove chemicals from the previous step so there should be no cross-contamination. If processing is done correctly there are really no issues with single tray method, other than the fact that you are limited to processing one print at a time. In my work I used a 16X20 tray to make prints up to about 12X18, and that is about as large as I would want to go with single tray method in my work space. I did at one time make some 20X24" print in a 23" X 33" tray but that was complicated and messy.

Sandy

[Brian C. Miller]

Also with some fancy math calculations you will find that you are mixing minimum 25 liters of chemicals to do the above. Now visualize putting 25 liters of water in a very long and wide tray and lifting that sucker.
What you will find is that unless the Incredible Hulk is standing next to you mere mortals like myself cannot dead lift that amount of water in a tray without spilling out the whole amount, let alone not damage the print while one is doing it , as well not create an incredible mess in the darkroom...


Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.

[frotog]

Frotog

nope I did not read your post correctly and I jumped on your post and really should not have. My point of view or observations are on large single trays that hold mural paper flat.
One of my pet peeves is the single tray method of printing, I just see too many issues with it.

FYI I do both methods of processing mural paper, scrolling in troughs as seemingly you do, and large tray 40 x50 x 3 inch.
The large amount of chemistry I use for scrolling is based on running up to 10 - 30 x120 inch sheets of paper in a given day and I use the larger amount of chemistry's so as not to pooch out half way(as stated I also replenish after every 10 ft of paper).
I do not think my scrolling time is long to get through 10 ft- about 30 seconds and then I have completely scrolled through - I lift up and rotate and scroll again.
I chose 3.40 min as my time due to balancing out a 21 step wedge that I have to balance each time I run this scrolling method. I use a longer time for murals print than regular small
prints as normal practice which is a about 2.30 seconds.

Second FYI- if you use a small flat tray 40 x 50 x3 inch to process 30 x40 murals your paper size is actually 33 x44 inches to allow for magnets to hold the paper down during exposure.

Now visualize how one would get the paper in the tray, making sure that chemicals will completely cover the emulsion and you can start rocking the tray within 15 seconds so as to not create flow marks.
now if you can visualize that , think about how deep the chemicals need to be in that tray to accomodate that 15 second criteria of getting fresh chemicals over the whole image and agitating to avoid flow marking.
Once you have calculated how deep the chemicals are in the tray, with consideration that I print all day and not in a evening , and I cannot think of anyone wanting to do murals in a small amount of time, you will see that the depth of chemicals is about 2 inches minimum to accomplish ones goals.

now if one is thinking of single tray development where you need to dump and fill to accomplish ones goals like lets say platinum printing, visualize how one would do this within the 15 second timeline . Also with some fancy math calculations you will find that you are mixing minimum 25 liters of chemicals to do the above. Now visualize putting 25 liters of water in a very long and wide tray and lifting that sucker.
What you will find is that unless the Incredible Hulk is standing next to you mere mortals like myself cannot dead lift that amount of water in a tray without spilling out the whole amount, let alone not damage the print while one is doing it , as well not create an incredible mess in the darkroom...If this sounds illogical fill the 20 x24 tray one has in the darkroom to the lip with water and dead lift it and pour into any container. When I was first starting out I could almost do this , 25 years later I would be lucky to pour out half the tray properly.



Both methods done correctly Trough or Tray will give dimple free prints , archival prints , but for the OP he/she should be very calculating before actually trying it or a lot of wasted money could end up in the trash can.

Bob,
Regarding using single tray for processing flat.... I'm in complete agreement with you - it's simply not possible unless your sink is dead level and you're built like lou ferregno. This seems obvious, hard to mistake and really not worth arguing about. As for using multiple, huge trays with gallons of chemistry - I have neither the space nor the need to do so as all my mural printing requirements are satisfied using the scrolling technique.

No, for the third time, I SCROLL MY MURALS - not seemingly, but actually. Using small amounts of chemistry! One gallon per bath! In a fairly narrow, long tray that any sheet metal job shop can fab for you. And I can tell you that it works brilliantly and solves lots of potential work-flow problems that a bigger set-up is prone to. This single-tray/scrolling technique of making murals is what I can wholeheartedly recommend to the op or anyone else interested in making big prints in a less than huge darkroom.

[Greg Blank]

;) :) :)

[Bruce Douglas]

Years ago I built a processing tube out for 32x40 prints of PVC sewer pipe, made end caps out of rubber sheet and put a drain in one end. It sat on a platform that tilted and had casters on it for the drum to roll on. I put chemicals in the drum through the fitting in the end. I rolled the drum to agitate the chemistry. When I wanted to change chemistry I tilted the drum and opened the drain to empty. I refilled through the same fitting. Once I put the paper in I did not have to move until it went into the washer. It worked well for me because there was no way to fit large enough trays or multiple troughs in darkroom I had to work in and it gave me good consistent results.

[RW Hawkins]

Bob,

Do you use something like a "pool noodle" to help support the paper?

[Pfiltz]

I'm just a newb to LF, but I'd be glad to buy any of you guys a drink if you did a YouTube vid on your techniques. Back to my cave....

[bob carnie]

No , I hear Clyde Butcher does.

Once I have the paper under the chemicals I rock the trays, there are handles welded on the ends on the long side that allow me
to walk back and forth and with some effort lift the ends to create a wave just like small prints .
All my trays are exactly the same height and when it is time to move to the next tray .. dev to stop ... I will hold the ends of paper in the rebate area
and basically walk the print to the next tray and it slides like butter to the next tray and continue rocking as with the first tray.

As I have been stating , I use a lot of chemicals ... this allows me to do this.

Bob,

Do you use something like a "pool noodle" to help support the paper?

[bob carnie]

Bill Schwab did one of me making murals of his work a few years back , I will see if I can dig that out someday.






I'm just a newb to LF, but I'd be glad to buy any of you guys a drink if you did a YouTube vid on your techniques. Back to my cave....

[ataim]

Is this a hairbrain idea? I've never tried this and just thinking out loud. Can you take a large piece of Plexiglas, or other water proof material, set it up vertically (well a little off), have a trough on the bottom of the Plexiglas to catch the runoff. Then have a small pump to circulate the chemicals across the prints in a continuous flow.
83177

[bob carnie]

no - but I have never tried it but I have heard of people that have with limited space. You will require a few buckets to hold the chemicals and a way of cleaning
the system between each exposure.

Is this a hairbrain idea? I've never tried this and just thinking out loud. Can you take a large piece of Plexiglas, or other water proof material, set it up vertically (well a little off), have a trough on the bottom of the Plexiglas to catch the runoff. Then have a small pump to circulate the chemicals across the prints in a continuous flow.
83177

[bob carnie]

His trays look exactly like mine and I work the same , but I rock the tray rather than run my hands over the print.

Also selenium attaches to the silver not replace.

Otherwise a great representation of how easy it is to move a print from tray to tray.

[Bruce Douglas]

Bob,

Do you use something like a "pool noodle" to help support the paper?

Thanks for reminding me about this important detail. I did this back in the late 1980's, so it has been a while. I did not use any device to get the paper to stay on the inside of the pipe. Once the paper was wet, it stuck to the smooth surface inside the piece of pipe. Actually, it was trickier getting the wet paper off of the inside of the pipe, rolled up on itself and out of the pipe without damaging it. I did one of three things to get the paper to stay in place:

1) Pre-wet the exposed paper in my wash tray, rolled it up, put it inside the pipe (emulsion side in) and unrolled it using my hand to push it against the inside of the pipe as I unrolled it.
2) Put the exposed dry paper in the pipe, put both end caps on, added a little water, wet the print, uncapped the pipe and unrolled the paper, pushing it against the inside of the pipe. I think this is what I did. I also wanted the pre-soak to help ensure even development since this arrangement used a relatively small amount of chemistry.

I still have the pipe, platform with casters and maybe even the end caps. If I get ambitious this weekend, I will photo them and maybe even try making a short video. Weekends are usually pretty busy though.

[LF_rookie_to_be]

Have you seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gGeG2oIwrA

[bob carnie]

Now that is cool

I was wondering about the enlarger on a wood table ... looks like he uses same setup and paper size for all prints
so the can lock down the drums.

It is almost the exact idea of a K16 processor Kodak produced except the paper rolls through the chemicals and not on the smooth drum.




Have you seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gGeG2oIwrA

[neil poulsen]

. . . All kidding aside our techniques are basically the same except I am able to accomplish finished professional results with one tray instead of a whole slew of trays.

How 'bout two trays?

One tray for developer.
Transfer into 2nd stop tray.
Then, consecutively replace chemistry in 2nd tray with Fixer, HPA, etc.

Isn't it easy enough to make your own custom tray out of plastic? If it doesn't have to be that deep (under 5" or so), there won't be that much pressure against the sides. In Portland, we have multiple plastic shops (e.g. Tap Plastics) that will custom cut pieces without extra charge. (Especially rectangular pieces.) Then, it's a matter of gluing the them together with the proper glue. I have two corner braces that will hold tightly two sides together in a perfect right angle, while the glue dries. (Etc.)

[frotog]

You're right Neil. Two trays are better than one just as three trays are better than two. The point of my initial post was merely to bring attention to the simplest, most foolproof way of doing this with a gallon or less of chemistry and minimum footprint.

Making trays out of plastic will work and DIY is great. S.S., however, is better for the reasons I pointed out.