Best 4x5 Developing Tank

[Raffay]

Hello All,

I was wondering what are the different types of developing tanks available for 4x5 development, and which ones are better. I currently have a FR Tank it is 1.5 Litres, it is squarish.

Cheers
Raffay

[Light Guru]

I don't think that one type of tank is inherently better then another, its really personal preference.

I personally prefer the Mod54 in a Paterson 3 reel tank.

[Raffay]

Some pictures

88347

88348

88349

[Raffay]

I find the square shape a little difficult to agitate, also it cannot be inverted so I am not sure if it would be easier to agitate the ones that can be inverted.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I use three different kinds of developing equipment. A Combi Plan is wonderful, even though it leaks a bit when inverting. Also I use a uni-color drum for constant agitation development. It is as good as any JOBO, IMHO. Finally, for fine work I use stainless steel 'canoe' (rocking trays), especially for 8x10 work.

When I did processing in a pro lab I used the typical hangars in large tanks with nitrogen burst agitation. Gosh, I wish I could afford that for personal work.

[StoneNYC]

After the same research the MOD54 seemed best for home use but it's EXPENSIVE especially if you live in the US and have to ship it...

I still need one... If anyone I selling...

[kbrede]

I'm in the same boat, researching and trying to decide. Currently I'm leaning toward the BTZS tubes. Or maybe pan or taco method......

http://www.viewcamerastore.com/servlet/the-2/BTZS-4x5-Film-Tube/Detail

[Bob Salomon]

I use three different kinds of developing equipment. A Combi Plan is wonderful, even though it leaks a bit when inverting. Also I use a uni-color drum for constant agitation development. It is as good as any JOBO, IMHO. Finally, for fine work I use stainless steel 'canoe' (rocking trays), especially for 8x10 work.

When I did processing in a pro lab I used the typical hangars in large tanks with nitrogen burst agitation. Gosh, I wish I could afford that for personal work.

If you have a leaking top contact us directly and we will replace it. It should not leak.
While the CombiPlan is now out of production we still have all of the parts, except for the tank body, should something break. But it should not leak and we will replace a top that does. As long as we still have tops.

As a compact, daylight system there simply was/is no better system then the CombiPlan when the instructions were followed.

[EdSawyer]

I think the Nikor 4x5 tank is the way to go for hand-developed film, personally.

[Light Guru]

I'm in the same boat, researching and trying to decide. Currently I'm leaning toward the BTZS tubes. Or maybe pan or taco method......

http://www.viewcamerastore.com/servlet/the-2/BTZS-4x5-Film-Tube/Detail

Biggest
issue with the BSZS tubs is you have to turn off the lights every time you change chemicals

[kbrede]

Biggest
issue with the BSZS tubs is you have to turn off the lights every time you change chemicals

According to the documentation that's not entirely accurate. You turn off the lights to put the film into the tubes and while you screw on the lid, containing developer. After that, everything else (stop, fix) can be done in subdued light or under a safelight.

[Ari]

Jobo 2553 tank and two 2409 reels; lets you develop 12 sheets of 4x5, it's foolproof and consistent.
I think the 2551 tank is for one reel of 6 sheets of 4x5.

[ndrs]

I think the Nikor 4x5 tank is the way to go for hand-developed film, personally.

+1

[Light Guru]

I think the Nikor 4x5 tank is the way to go for hand-developed film, personally.

If you can find them and are willing to pay the price they are EXPENSIVE.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Bob:

The very little bit of spill is of no concern to me. I develop over a sink. The Comb Plan is wonderful!

[Jac@stafford.net]

Expensive? I think not. I sold mine with band for under $150 on that auction site. IMHO it is way over-rated.

[Light Guru]

Expensive? I think not. I sold mine with band for under $150 on that auction site. IMHO it is way over-rated.

You could have gotten double that. The two Nikor 4x5 Tanks on ebay for now are both $300. WAY to expensive in my opinion for a developing tank.

[bobwysiwyg]

A Combi Plan is wonderful, even though it leaks a bit when inverting

I initially had the same problem. I found that after loading the film, place the tank bottom against your chest and firmly press the lid, working around the edges with your fingers. The lid is a very subtle rubber, whichis good, but just needs an assist along the tank rim. This stopped my leaks completely.

[rcmartins]

First of all let me just kind of introduce myself since I am new to these forums and there is no specific forum for introductions. In a nutshell my name is Raul Carneiro Martins, I am portuguese, live in Portugal and have a 4x5 field camera, although I am considering getting into the 8x10 in the near future. I also do my own developing and printing.
Regarding the OP, I guess the choice of tank are dependent on the type of development carried out and the film process at hand. In my case I regularly use three approaches for sheet development:

- B&W film developed in Yankee tanks - they are similar to the OPs tank, rectangular parallelepiped, capable of withstanding 12 sheets and using up 1.6 l of chemicals
- B&W film in trays when a specific sheet requires contrast control
- Jobo 2509n spirals for color (C-41 and E-6)

Now, since I know that some guys here, LF Forums, really hate the Yankee tank I will shortly explain the reasons why it suits my developing style and works exceedingly well...for me. I soup my sheets in Rodinal-like developer doing semi-stand development that requires 20 min. with just 5s of agitation at the 10 min. mark. The sheets are just standing there. Development strategies that are more violent might not be as successful although I must confess that when I tried it, higher agitation that is, it worked very well. Agitation in these rectangular tanks must be carried out in a lateral fashion and if properly done is equivalent to inversions. In my MF I use AP tanks and inversion at the 10 min. mark getting equivalent results.
There is just one thing that I had to do after my first attempt with the Yankee tank - the rack that holds the sheets floats with the liquids, specially if it has bubbles, and this can give rise to uneven chemistry being applied to the sheets. I glued 4 rubber doorstops with the proper height on the bottom of the lid and that forces the rack to stay at the bottom. It has worked wonderfully and the glue, to my surprise, withstands the chemicals - after more than 50 uses they are still glued.
The 1.6 l is quite a volume, its true. However, I use Rodinal in dilutions over 1+100, and Rodinal by itself is cheap and has a very long shelf life. Even though I use demineralised water at some stages, I still find it very acceptable being cheaper than the C-41 and specially the E-6 even considering 5 l chemistry configurations.

[Paul H]

If you can find one (they're more prevalent in the UK), a Paterson Orbital is good. It's basically a light proof tray, in which you can develop four 4x5" sheets at a time. It only requires 100-150ml of developing solution. Simple to load, even in a dark bag. You can get them with a manual base or motorised base.

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

Another vote for the Combiplan. If you can "go to dark",the "lift,tilt and drain" method works well with these.
I tried a MOD 54, but I lacked the dexterity to load it reliably -it is harder than it looks in the video.

[C. D. Keth]

Biggest
issue with the BSZS tubs is you have to turn off the lights every time you change chemicals

Not true. I load them in a dark tent and then am never in full darkness again. I mix the developer and pour it in the extra caps. The tubes get transferred to the caps with developer in very, very low light. Just enough to make out shapes against the bathtub. When development is complete, the tube less its cap goes into a tray full of water for stop. Then the film is removed from the tube and into a tray of fix. These last two steps are in subdued light, just enough to comfortably see. I usually work in my bathtub with a black towel over the little window.

[Tim Meisburger]

The Paterson Orbital is the best tank ever made. Too bad they don't make it anymore, and no one in China makes a knock off. With the orbital it is perfectly feasible to develop one sheet at a time (for zone system), you can develop 4x5 or 5x7 or 8x10 or sizes in between, super cheap to operate, and you can use it for prints as well. With the orbital its perfectly possible to develop with nothing more than a darkbag to load the film, which makes its super easy for developing on the road. Nothing else comes close.

[Graham Patterson]

These days I use Jobo 2551 tanks (2) with 2509n reels for most 5x4. I still have my homemade single sheet ABS tubes with light trap lids for times when I don't want the rotary process. The Paterson Universal tank could be used for the 'taco' method. There's even a Yankee tank somewhere. Take your pick.

[Jac@stafford.net]

You could have gotten double that. The two Nikor 4x5 Tanks on ebay for now are both $300. WAY to expensive in my opinion for a developing tank.

Ah, but those tanks have no bids. I base my expectations upon the mean $$$ of completed auctions. I sell with no reserve and a 99-cent beginning price. I am in the business of selling, not just advertising on the auction site. It has always worked out well.
.

[Light Guru]

Ah, but those tanks have no bids. I base my expectations upon the mean $$$ of completed auctions. I sell with no reserve and a 99-cent beginning price. I am in the business of selling, not just advertising on the auction site. It has always worked out well.
.

They have no bids because they are NOT auctions they are Buy It Now.

[Jac@stafford.net]

They have no bids because they are NOT auctions they are Buy It Now.

:) You are right. We shall see if they sell at those asking prices.

[ac12]

I just check the eBay sold listings for the Nikor 4x5 tank.
The high was $275, the low was $90, average price $184.
The prices I found were: $275,195,145,150,189,90,148,200,188,216,178,238
So even on auction, people are paying more than $200.

Maybe I should sell my spare tank.

[EdSawyer]

Also note some of the cheap ones on ebay sold items were slightly rusty, missing the band etc.

[cyrus]

IF I had to use a tank for 4x5 (and I'd prefer not to) then the taco method is the cheapest, easiest, and most even for tank development, I have found.

[Raffay]

What is the taco method?

[WayneStevenson]

I have a Yankee tank. I used it once a few years back when I purchased it. But it ruined a trip's worth to the mountains by uneven development. Proper agitation seems like a problem with them. I haven't had the courage to attempt it again.

Using Jobo tanks with 2509s is great either on the machine, or manually with the rubber cap. I prefer using manually as you can invert it without problem.

A lot of the time I will just use double 120 (quad 135) SS tanks. You can load single or double sheets on portrait orientation with emulsion side facing outwards from eachother. Though you need to fill the tank in case the film walks up the tank during agitation, it allows for inversion agitation, and no extra equipment.

[Graham Patterson]

The 'taco' method involves curling the sheet emulsion in, and securing in a U shape with a large rubber band. You can then develop the film in a standard tank with the center column in, but no spirals. The tank should be about 5" internal height (one that takes two 120 reels), and you need to consider the volume you will need without the film. Several sheets can be done at once. Agitate by inversion.

The rack out of a Yankee tank is useful for washing film. Agitating the whole thing for even developing is definitely in the 'art not science' category for me! That's why I have other options.

[chassis]

I like using a BTZS tube with a slight modification to allow stand development. The modification is a rubber coupling to extend the tube length a little, plus the appropriate size PVC fittings to facilitate a threaded cap, since the BTZS cap has threads which aren't compatible with PVC fittings.

In total darkness, load the film in the tube, pour in the developer and attach the cap. Invert once, then let stand for 12-14 minutes depending on contrast needed (Tri-X in D-76 1:3 at 68F). Under standard safelight for B&W paper, remove the cap, discard developer and roll the tube in a tray of stop bath. After the stop bath, roll the tube in a tray of fixer for about 2 minutes. Remove the film from the tube and put it in a stainless hanger, then in a square hard rubber tank filled with fixer. Fix for the proper time, wash, dry.

This method is economical with chemical (2 oz. of stock D-76, plus 4 oz. water to make 6 oz. total working soln.), is easy, and provides even development.

[welly]

I've used four methods for developing 4x5:

* Paterson orbital. Really easy to use but you have to modify them to stop sheets from sticking or from getting marks. It was the first method I used and I found I always got marks so gave up that one. Low chemical usage.

* Trays. Need a darkroom for this. Pretty easy to do, very flexible method - develop one sheet or lots. Can require a lot of chemicals, depending on your tray size. I occasionally found this method could result in scratched negatives and occasionally negs would stick together, probably due to my lack of practice.

* Trays with slosher - needs a darkroom, needs more chemicals than trays alone. I needed an 11x14" tray and over 1 litre of chemicals so my negs were completely submerged. Never scratched a negative, got great results.

* BTZS tubes. My current and favourite method. Needs a darkroom for one step of the process but lights are on for the rest. Requires very little chemicals - 60ml. You can develop different negatives for different lengths of time. Quite good fun rolling those tubes in the bath. I find 4 is my limit - rolling 6 tubes can be a bit chaotic. Results have been great.

I use trays for 8x10 still but I develop 1 sheet of 8x10 at a time.

All the above developing methods have been relatively cheap although Paterson orbitals are getting rare and expensive lately. Mine cost me around $100 but they're upwards of $200 now. Trays are cheap and well worth trying out, tubes are also quite cheap and definitely worth a go.

Try them all, it's good experience giving all methods a go and none of them really break the bank.

[StoneNYC]

Expensive? I think not. I sold mine with band for under $150 on that auction site. IMHO it is way over-rated.

You got hosed the last one on eBay went for $300

[StoneNYC]

Another vote for the Combiplan. If you can "go to dark",the "lift,tilt and drain" method works well with these.
I tried a MOD 54, but I lacked the dexterity to load it reliably -it is harder than it looks in the video.

Still have it? I'm looking for one in the US

[Dan Henderson]

For a long time I was a devotee of Yankee tanks. Then I got an assignment that required me to do some "portraits" of area mountains, which by necessity included skies. As I shot and developed my film I began noticing some seriously uneven development in sky areas. Many of the negatives are difficult or impossible to print with these defects. I know that I have included skies in my photographs before, but for whatever reason have never noticed a problem. I have tried about every iteration of agitation I could think of, and still experienced the problem. Out of desperation I switched to a slosher tray and am getting perfect negatives. I appreciated the convenience of daylight tanks, but since I apparently have to use trays to get good negatives, I have embraced the darkness. I have come to enjoy the time without lights. I find it beneficial to concentrate on only my sense of touch to accomplish my work.

Oh yeah, I will make a good deal to anyone who wants some Yankee tanks.

[Cor]

For 4*5 the best method in my hands is a Jobo 310 Expert Drum, on a Simma sine wave roller. (My Jobo CPE or is it "A" I keep forgetting cannot handle Expert drums). Consistent negatives all the time, no matter what film developer combination, more than I can say of the Jobo2504n (?) reels for processing 6 negatives at a time (yes I have the "modern" version with the baffles).

I do realise that a Jobo 3010 is not within easy financial reach though.

8*10 I process in a Patterson Orbital on a motor base: a word of caution: I use 300 ml per 8*10 sheet, and I have to take care that the sheet is able to move around freely after pre-wetting the film ( I actually first pour the water in, and submerge the film). If I do not do that I will have under-development marks in the middle of the film. If I observe the tank without a lid , filled with 300ml water, you can easily see that the height of fluid in the middle is minimal compared to the edges when rotating on my rocking device..it might be that the angle of my rocking device is too steep though (its something like this (http://www.pocdscientific.com.au/Edmund-Buhler_3D-Orbital-Mixer-Shaker_TL10.php) )

Best,

Cor

[unixrevolution]

I don't have space for a proper darkroom, so I had to find a daylight solution for 4x5". I initially bought a Combi-Plan 4x5 tank, but quite frankly, I thought it was garbage. I never got even development, my sheets kept coming out of the racks, it leaked like crazy and used over a liter of chemistry. It was a nightmare.

The Combi-Plan was happily sold when I got a Paterson Orbital on the forum here. It came with epoxy bumps on the bottom pre-done but they were a little too tall and I got marks. After sanding them off a bit, the tank is a dream! Low chemical usage, even development, and it does 5x7 and 8x10 too, which is awesome because I have an 8x10 I'm fixing to try this spring.

The low chemical usage took my cost per sheet down by a LOT. 1.5 liters of chemistry for 6 sheets was okay, but if I wanted to do one sheet and get the true benefit of bespoke development inherent to sheet film, I was pretty stuck. With the Orbital I can develop one sheet in One-shot chemicals and not worry about the expense.

I hand-agitate with my Orbital as the power base is from England, but even without the base, I'm getting great results cheaply and easily.

[Bob Salomon]

"I initially bought a Combi-Plan 4x5 tank, but quite frankly, I thought it was garbage. I never got even development, my sheets kept coming out of the racks, it leaked like crazy and used over a liter of chemistry. It was a nightmare."

We are sorry that you had problems with it you should have called us and we would have walked you through it.
The CombiPlan holds sheet film or glass plates. For sheet film the end plates must have the curved sides facing each other. For glass plates the straight sides must face each other. If you have the wrong sides facing each other or one of each side facing each other you will have problems keeping the film in place and loading the carrier.
The hold down clip on the top will not let properly loaded film slip out unless it is broken. It can be broken by trying to remove it without pressing in on th elong spring sides. It has to be done correctly to dis-engage the teeth on the clip.
If you had uneven development then the most likely cause was improper agitation. The Combi system was designed for inversion agitation using the amount of chemistry listed on the inside of the lid. That amount of chemistry left an air space so the chemistry could flow when the tank was inverted. This brought fresh chemistry in contact with the emulsion during agitation.

Lastly if the lid leaked, and was properly fitted, we would replace it as the system should not leak.

It is too bad you had not called us. We probably would have saved you a lot of grief.

[unixrevolution]

"I initially bought a Combi-Plan 4x5 tank, but quite frankly, I thought it was garbage. I never got even development, my sheets kept coming out of the racks, it leaked like crazy and used over a liter of chemistry. It was a nightmare."

We are sorry that you had problems with it you should have called us and we would have walked you through it.
The CombiPlan holds sheet film or glass plates. For sheet film the end plates must have the curved sides facing each other. For glass plates the straight sides must face each other. If you have the wrong sides facing each other or one of each side facing each other you will have problems keeping the film in place and loading the carrier.
The hold down clip on the top will not let properly loaded film slip out unless it is broken. It can be broken by trying to remove it without pressing in on th elong spring sides. It has to be done correctly to dis-engage the teeth on the clip.
If you had uneven development then the most likely cause was improper agitation. The Combi system was designed for inversion agitation using the amount of chemistry listed on the inside of the lid. That amount of chemistry left an air space so the chemistry could flow when the tank was inverted. This brought fresh chemistry in contact with the emulsion during agitation.

Lastly if the lid leaked, and was properly fitted, we would replace it as the system should not leak.

It is too bad you had not called us. We probably would have saved you a lot of grief.

Bob,

I don't mean to say anything bad about anybody's product, but I have to relate my honest experiences with the tank. I read all the documentation, several times, and test-loaded it in the light with old negatives repeatedly to make sure I was doing it right. The hold-down clip was just fine, and I loaded it as instructed in the leaf of instructions that came with it, loading the film correctly and using the correct amount of chemistry each time according to its lid. I just never got good results. Maybe I agitated too hard, or I wasn't diligent in my loading practices, but it just never worked for me as it should have. It did produce some images, but 9 times out of 10 it would do something bad.

Attempt 1: negatives were badly streaked
Attempt 2: Negatives stuck together
Attempt 3: Negatives stuck to the sides

I can't figure out what you could have told me that would have made it work properly as opposed to what I was doing, but when I got the Orbital it worked, first go, and I didn't have an extensive instruction leaflet for that. I didn't see the point in spending the money on the vast amount of chemicals the Combi-Plan required when the Orbital did what I wanted it to do, and wasn't acting up on me.

The Combi-plan probably *can* work just fine, but for me it was not worth the hassle. I sold it as fast as I could once I figured out how much better I like the orbital tray. It's more economical, easier, and less headache.

[macandal]

You could have gotten double that. The two Nikor 4x5 Tanks on ebay for now are both $300. WAY to expensive in my opinion for a developing tank.This is true. I've been looking for one of these tanks, but I don't feel like paying $300 for it.

[Riverviewer]

Has anyone tried a 'slosher' plexi development tray?

[StoneNYC]

This is true. I've been looking for one of these tanks, but I don't feel like paying $300 for it.

Really want a MOD54 tank but they are expensive to ship from Europe...

[Gem Singer]

B&H has the MOD54 insert for the Paterson tank listed on their website, with availability on Mar.15th.

[StoneNYC]

B&H has the MOD54 insert for the Paterson tank listed on their website, with availability on Mar.15th.

Thanks, they keep pushing it back though so not sure it will ever happen lol

[Ed Bray]

My favourite way of processing 4x5 and 5x7 is using a Semi-Stand technique (400mls chemicals) with a Paterson Orbital off the base and sat in a tray of water on top of a dishwarmer. Agitation is by slightly rocking the Orbital, fantastic negatives with no streaks or spots. I have also processed 4x5 x4 sheets Taco Style with few issues.

I have tried 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 in Jobo print drums mostly with some streaking evident.

I also tried a Yankee Tank with very poor results (gave that away).

I have now aquired a brand new Jobo 3010 and a very nice Jobo 3006 but haven't actually used them yet. That is for my next set of negatives.

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

I really don't understand the "Angst" some experience with the Combiplan.
Being in the South Pacific,we never had anything as unlikely as "Product Support",so we had to make it up as we went along.
Never owned a Film Holding Clip,the Rapid Loading Guide lost in a fire.
Fabricated my own loading guide,use Lift & Tilt method-never anything but evenly developed negatives.
If you lack finesse,and treat the tank like a cocktail shaker,you will get streaky,misplaced film,leaks,and all the tedious problems I read so much about.
That said,if you can get some Tupperware containers,and keep the whole rig in a 3-gallon Kodak Tank,with a light-tight lid,you are good to go.
The MOD54 is good in principle- but horribly difficult to load reliably.
A Third Best option after a Combiplan..

[unixrevolution]

I really don't understand the "Angst" some experience with the Combiplan.
Being in the South Pacific,we never had anything as unlikely as "Product Support",so we had to make it up as we went along.
Never owned a Film Holding Clip,the Rapid Loading Guide lost in a fire.
Fabricated my own loading guide,use Lift & Tilt method-never anything but evenly developed negatives.
If you lack finesse,and treat the tank like a cocktail shaker,you will get streaky,misplaced film,leaks,and all the tedious problems I read so much about.
That said,if you can get some Tupperware containers,and keep the whole rig in a 3-gallon Kodak Tank,with a light-tight lid,you are good to go.
The MOD54 is good in principle- but horribly difficult to load reliably.
A Third Best option after a Combiplan..

I read several threads on Combiplans before I bought mine and always handled it appropriately. I followed all the instructions, too. I am not too proud to read a manual. If it works for you, great, but after getting the orbital, I just didn't see putting the effort into getting the Combi to work...especially as I rarely have enough negatives that doing them six at a time is necessary. The orbital is much easier on chemistry.

That said, my experience with the Combi was my experience. If it works for you, enjoy!

[StoneNYC]

For me it's about saving space and time (and probably money) and chemistry, the MOD54 takes 1L I don't think the combi plane takes that little amount of chemistry.

You need to use what works for you, that's all.

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

I read several threads on Combiplans before I bought mine and always handled it appropriately. I followed all the instructions, too. I am not too proud to read a manual. If it works for you, great, but after getting the orbital, I just didn't see putting the effort into getting the Combi to work...especially as I rarely have enough negatives that doing them six at a time is necessary. The orbital is much easier on chemistry.

That said, my experience with the Combi was my experience. If it works for you, enjoy!

I think the point that needs making here is that the Paterson Orbital was made in fairly limited quantities,for a short period of time,so it is only an option for those lucky enough to own one.
Which leaves many thousands of Combiplan tank owners,of whom a substantial number are obviously unimpressed with the design,bereft.
Perhaps a "Support Group for Unhappy Combiplan Owners" thread is in order?
I may move this to the Lounge (if the moderators don't do it for me).
The Combi can also be used in a horizontal position to process 1-3 sheets,with much less chemical volume required. Yes,it works.

[jp]

I use a combiplan and it works perfectly for me. I get a few drips, and it drains/fills slower than I like but I'm not going to cry about that. If someone made a combiplan that addressed that, I'd be in line to buy it.. The current one I won't call "bad", but it has room for improvement. I don't need the loading guides. I've used it with xtol, caffenol-c, pmk, pyrocatHD, hc110, and d76.

Film always is processed perfectly and uniformly and stays in place. My trick is slow agitation. An inversion is a slow motion event, taking a good 5 seconds. You don't want to be thrashing around a liter of liquid; that's a KG of chemicals versus flimsy sheets of film. Also, the clip that holds the film in should not be tight. If it's too tight, it will cause the film to flex and potentially pop out.

[imagedowser]

Your FR tank is the BEST, but only for one process.... stand development. Try caffinol stand or get your eyes on a copy of "Iredescent Light" by Michael Axel. Use eight (8) sheets or less because of the dev dilution.

[photonsoup]

Thanks, they keep pushing it back though so not sure it will ever happen lol

I went ahead and ordered one. If they can't get a lot at once, they may be selling out without catching up on orders. Order one and secure a place in line. I've actually received items months before they are listed as "in stock" from other (non photo) web sites.

[StoneNYC]

I went ahead and ordered one. If they can't get a lot at once, they may be selling out without catching up on orders. Order one and secure a place in line. I've actually received items months before they are listed as "in stock" from other (non photo) web sites.

Thanks!

[Bob Salomon]

" The current one I won't call "bad", but it has room for improvement. "
There is no current one. We have discontinued all of them and all that are available now are replacement parts. All parts are available except for the tank body which is sold out and the mold has broken and will not be re-tooled.

Also, there was never a current and older one. They were all the same. Regardless if it was the original one from Krause in Germany, the next one from Gepe in Sweden, the following one that we made in Newark or the final one which was again made by Gepe again in Sweden.

They were all made from the same molds and from the same plastic. The only visible difference was that we stopped mounting the logo crest on the front of the tank when we started to have them made again in Sweden.

[md99]

Biggest
issue with the BSZS tubs is you have to turn off the lights every time you change chemicals

Not sure what you mean. I've used BTZS tubes for years and I do not see this type of issue.
Cheers!

[Light Guru]

Not sure what you mean. I've used BTZS tubes for years and I do not see this type of issue.
Cheers!

That's how the usage of them was explained to me. If I'm incorrect then no worries. I settled on the unicolor from and motorized stand for my preferred method.

[redrockcoulee]

The Paterson Orbital is the best tank ever made. Too bad they don't make it anymore, and no one in China makes a knock off. With the orbital it is perfectly feasible to develop one sheet at a time (for zone system), you can develop 4x5 or 5x7 or 8x10 or sizes in between, super cheap to operate, and you can use it for prints as well. With the orbital its perfectly possible to develop with nothing more than a darkbag to load the film, which makes its super easy for developing on the road. Nothing else comes close.

I just got one of these along with the motor. It looks brand new even in the box and was on a shelf of take or we throw away. Glad to hear that they do work. Will try some WP negs in them this summer

[redrockcoulee]

"I initially bought a Combi-Plan 4x5 tank, but quite frankly, I thought it was garbage. I never got even development, my sheets kept coming out of the racks, it leaked like crazy and used over a liter of chemistry. It was a nightmare."

We are sorry that you had problems with it you should have called us and we would have walked you through it.
The CombiPlan holds sheet film or glass plates. For sheet film the end plates must have the curved sides facing each other. For glass plates the straight sides must face each other. If you have the wrong sides facing each other or one of each side facing each other you will have problems keeping the film in place and loading the carrier.
The hold down clip on the top will not let properly loaded film slip out unless it is broken. It can be broken by trying to remove it without pressing in on th elong spring sides. It has to be done correctly to dis-engage the teeth on the clip.
If you had uneven development then the most likely cause was improper agitation. The Combi system was designed for inversion agitation using the amount of chemistry listed on the inside of the lid. That amount of chemistry left an air space so the chemistry could flow when the tank was inverted. This brought fresh chemistry in contact with the emulsion during agitation.

Lastly if the lid leaked, and was properly fitted, we would replace it as the system should not leak.

It is too bad you had not called us. We probably would have saved you a lot of grief.

I have two Combi-tanks and one of them has a broken spring and it still holds the film in place. It takes more time to adjust then the good one but still functions. Both tanks leaked and my solution was that after the lids were on tight, go around to each corner and press down even harder. Barely any leakage after doing that.

They are difficult to load Technical Pan in though for some reason, most likely as it is so thin it just slides out of the ridges.

[photonsoup]

There is a new MOD 54 on ebay for 69.00 + shpg. Don't know if there is just one or if there are more.

[Light Guru]

There is a new MOD 54 on ebay for 69.00 + shpg. Don't know if there is just one or if there are more.

Mod54 announced last month a new model you can buy them on their website. That price looks like their standard price. Morgan the creator has been known to also sell them on eBay.

[Fredrick]

I am wondering which system to go for. I am considering the Mod54 and a Paterson 3 or a Jobo Multitank and the 4x5 reel. Now, the Paterson solution would be cheaper to buy, but it would use a lot more chemicals than the Multitank. What I'm wondering is which one would be the better solution? I have access to a darkroom and could do open tank development or tray development, buy I find it to be a hassle. I'd rather just load the film in the complete dark and then develop in the light, with development app on my phone.

I guess this doesn't make a lot of sense, but I needed to write this for my own good. Any suggestions would be welcome.

[Noah B]

Frederick,

I was considering the mod54 as well but I opted for the JOBO multitank w/ 4x5 reels instead. Personally, I want to be able to develop about 12 sheets at a time instead of 6. JOBO also makes the smaller tank that takes 6 sheets of film if numbers aren't an issue. It depends on your developer and how much is needed for one sheet of 4x5 film (XTOL is 25mL for one piece of 4x5), and you can find that info on the spec sheet of your developer. So, if I opt for the JOBO and want to develop 12 sheets, then I need at least 300mL minimum of developer for each film, and 150mL for 6 sheets. What I like about the JOBO is that since it agitates on it's side, you can use XTOL 1:1 on HP5+ 300mL/300mL of chemistry/water. With the mod54 the tank sits upright, so you need to fill the tank up (which I think is around 1000mL) and if you wanted to do 1:1 it'd be 500mL/500mL chemistry water. I would recommend the JOBO because you save chemistry over time, and you can run twice the amount of sheets in one session. Hope this helps!

Noah

[Fredrick]

Thank you Noah, this helps! I guess I'll go for the JOBO. Much cheaper over time, and I've read mixed reviews of the MOD54 - streaking and such. The JOBO will save me a lot of chemistry I'm guessing. I live in Norway and unfortunately I have to import everything, because it so expensive here. However I will be using the JOBO manually with the inversion cog. I don't have the money for a processor and I really don't see the need. It might just be that I'll get access to a darkroom with proper temperature control, so that I can process my own colour too. The future looks bright regarding me and LF.

Thanks again.

[Noah B]

Glad to have helped! Have you looked into the JOBO manual roller base and the Beseler roller base? They're both a great solution for rolling the JOBO tanks. If you google catlabsofjp you'll find the US distributor located in Boston, I've got all of my JOBO gear from them and they've always been helpful. Good luck!

[Fredrick]

Yes, I have looked into that. Seems too expensive for something I might be able to construct myself. Either way I have never had any problems with conventional agitation, but I sense that there might be a difference with the JOBO system?

[cobbu2]

Another vote for the Combi-Plan. I have very few leakage issues with it if any at all, and no problems with streaking or uniformity. One of the squeeze tabs for the retaining clip is cracked, but it stills works. I can see myself looking to replace it in the near future as long as parts are still available.

[Noah B]

Conventional as in rolling the bare tank on the table back and forth? I'd put a bundle of rubber bands on the ends, or just on the bottom to roll it. I've done that before and the negs came out fine. The manual base sure is nice though.


Yes, I have looked into that. Seems too expensive for something I might be able to construct myself. Either way I have never had any problems with conventional agitation, but I sense that there might be a difference with the JOBO system?

[Carsten Wolff]

.... probably not THE best one, but the only ones I ever used are the old Kodak rubber tanks. I use them both in 4x5 and 5x7 with s/s hangers, do about 8 sheets at a time and never had a problem with them. To be honest, I've never really lost much sleep over whether I am using the best system or not; it works fine and was cheap. :)

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

Another vote for CombiPlan, which I have used for 13 years. I agitate a good bit: 3 full inversions with a 90 deg twist in 5 seconds, every 30 s. Anyone experiencing slipping sheets: check that you do *not* use the blue washers, which were supplied with the kit but not intended for use with 4x5 sheet film.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

For me it's about saving space and time (and probably money) and chemistry, the MOD54 takes 1L I don't think the combi plane takes that little amount of chemistry.

You need to use what works for you, that's all.

Stone, CombiPlan uses 1l for up to 6 sheets of 4x5.

[StoneNYC]

Stone, CombiPlan uses 1l for up to 6 sheets of 4x5.

Oh, thanks, so I guess it's the same haha :) good info

[Tin Can]

This is why I like 2x3.

I only saw these once and bought them for $5.00.

94140

[Crash10]

Have the new MOD 54....60 sheets through it already with zero problems.

[StoneNYC]

This is why I like 2x3.

I only saw these once and bought them for $5.00.

94140

Wow that looks great!

[Tin Can]

They work good for me. They can hold 12 sheets each, but old fumble fingers cannot make it happen without 2 sheets in a groove. I stick to 6 each.

Maybe somebody here has them?

[dave clayton]

Mod 54 for me its a good system

[SpeedGraphicMan]

For me it is the Yankee 4x5 utility tanks with the SS hangers,

Gives me the best and most even agitiation.

You can also make your own tanks out of ABS sheets and use the SS hangers with smaller quantities of chems.

[Dwarak Calayampundi]

Hi I am opting for the Paterson solution as I already have a system 4 tank I am at the moment using the taco method to develop the 4x5 sheets I am new to developing and use rodinal with concentration of 1:100 and stand development got very good results so far. Want to know if I develop 3 sheets using the system 4 tank how much rodinal will I have to use to process 3 sheets.

[Leigh]

The minimum amount of Rodinal is 10ml per 8x10 sheet* regardless of dilution.

That requirement may prevent you from using a 1+100 dilution, depending on tank capacity.

- Leigh

*Note: An 8x10 sheet means one sheet of film that size, or any combination of film that can be proofed
on a single sheet of 8x10 paper, e.g. four 4x5 sheets, one 35mm 36-exposure roll, one 120 roll, etc.

[Tin Can]

Leigh,

I did not know that. Tonight I developed 2 sheets of double-sided X-Ray 8x10 with 10 ml Rodinal at 1/100. I could not see a difference in the two sheets.

I may be pushing the limit.

I will stop being so parsimonious.






The minimum amount of Rodinal is 10ml per 8x10 sheet* regardless of dilution.

- Leigh

*Note: An 8x10 sheet means one sheet of film that size, or any combination of film that can be proofed
on a single sheet of 8x10 paper, e.g. four 4x5 sheets, one 35mm 36-exposure roll, one 120 roll, etc.

[Leigh]

Hi Randy,

Yep. It's right on the datasheet, although kinda convoluted. It says a 500ml bottle will process 50 rolls of film.

I've followed that guidance for over 50 years, with consistently excellent results.
I was introduced to it a few years after I started shooting, and it's been my standard developer every since.

Note that Rodinal is meant for slow films. Obviously, X-ray film qualifies as slow. :D
Results with fast films (400 and above) may differ.

- Leigh

[Dwarak Calayampundi]

Thanks for the advice I do not process in large quantities and the maximum would prob do 3 4x5 sheets with rodinal. I got my self one of the new Paterson tanks looking forward to using it.

[Tin Can]

Yes, I did not like 35 mm with Rodinal, but 10 minutes at 1/100 seems good, with LF.

Sergei, is doing good research with time.

I am trying to standardize with Rodinal, it is cheap, concentrated and one shot.






Hi Randy,

Yep. It's right on the datasheet, although kinda convoluted. It says a 500ml bottle will process 50 rolls of film.

I've followed that guidance for over 50 years, with consistently excellent results.
I was introduced to it a few years after I started shooting, and it's been my standard developer every since.

Note that Rodinal is meant for slow films. Obviously, X-ray film qualifies as slow. :D
Results with fast films (400 and above) may differ.

- Leigh

[Frank_E]

I am trying to standardize with Rodinal, it is cheap, concentrated and one shot.

but where do you buy Rodinal now
it no longer seems to be available in Canada
up until about a year ago the same formula was being sold under the name "Blazinal"
but that supplier is no longer distributing it according to several stores in Toronto

[Leigh]

Rodinal is available under different names, including R09.
There's some problem with the trademarked name Rodinal.
I think some company bought the name, but they don't make the product???

- Leigh

[Tin Can]

I buy it as R09 from Freestyle.


but where do you buy Rodinal now
it no longer seems to be available in Canada
up until about a year ago the same formula was being sold under the name "Blazinal"
but that supplier is no longer distributing it according to several stores in Toronto

[rcmartins]

As far as I know Rodinal is a trademark of Agfa who has long stopped producing it. There are several alternatives that mimick the composition, but I guess are not exactly equal albeit producing very similar results. In Europe R09 is the usual alternative and is commonly available - it is the one I use.

[Leigh]

The US Patent and Trademark Office (www.uspto.gov) shows the current trademark holder to be ADOX Fotowerke GmbH.

That information was filed in August 2012, which is quite recent. That may represent a change of status. I don't know.

- Leigh

[StoneNYC]

but where do you buy Rodinal now
it no longer seems to be available in Canada
up until about a year ago the same formula was being sold under the name "Blazinal"
but that supplier is no longer distributing it according to several stores in Toronto

You can get it from Freestyle or B&H as either R09 or Adox Adonal (which I prefer just because I trust Adox more and I get conflicting info on whether R09 is the same supplier or not, but I can attest Adox Adonal is good stuff.

Also there IS a store in Canada that sells it I just can't recall which, ask the APUG folks they would know.

[tenderobject]

Anyone tried the new mod54 processor? is it good? I might get the upgrade on my old one next time.

[darrelll]

In my college courses, we used the simple hard rubber boxes for 4x5 film. A few years back I bought some 8x10 stainless steel tanks with 4 up 4x5 hangers and 8x10 hangers as I now have 8x10's I'm planning to start shooting with. I guess the only drawback I see is that the tank requires a lot of developer... I guess I should be on the look out for the narrow tank to conserve on the developer.

[Dwarak Calayampundi]

Just ordered the mod 54 waiting for it to arrive heard that the sheets do not stay in place with frequent agitation but I do stand dev and do not agitate it much.

[JW Dewdney]

i'm the ONLY one still using the kodak hard rubber tanks? It's what I started with and I'll never stop using them. Or else 8x10 nikor tanks with the 'grouped' 4x5 hangers when I have a lot of stuff to develop...

[nsurit]

i'm the ONLY one still using the kodak hard rubber tanks? It's what I started with and I'll never stop using them. Or else 8x10 nikor tanks with the 'grouped' 4x5 hangers when I have a lot of stuff to develop...

I use the old version of the Mod 54. Due to operator error I had a problem or two at first. Once I literally got the touch and watched the utube video, I haven't had a problem. I'll get the new version soon. Bill Barber

[Light Guru]

I use the old version of the Mod 54. Due to operator error I had a problem or two at first. Once I literally got the touch and watched the utube video, I haven't had a problem. I'll get the new version soon. Bill Barber

I love the idea of the mod54 but it simply was not designed to work with thin sheets of film. The only time it sheets don't come out of place is when they are thick sheets.

My mod54 has been relegated to only holding film for my final rinse.

[JW Dewdney]

pardon me for the ignorance on the nomenclature - but what's the 'mod 54'? does that refer to the Kodak tanks or the hangers (thought the hangers were 4A's) - but I can't imagine anyone having any problems with either of 'em... so easy to use and without issues...

it's the developing trays I could never master. I have a special knack for managing to even reduce a single sheet of film to ribbons of gelatin even with the gentlest of agitation in a tray!

[Light Guru]

pardon me for the ignorance on the nomenclature - but what's the 'mod 54'? does that refer to the Kodak tanks or the hangers (thought the hangers were 4A's) - but I can't imagine anyone having any problems with either of 'em... so easy to use and without issues...

it's the developing trays I could never master. I have a special knack for managing to even reduce a single sheet of film to ribbons of gelatin even with the gentlest of agitation in a tray!

http://bit.ly/12hj5Cp

[JW Dewdney]

already tried googling, Zak - without a specific reference or context - it's a bit hard to find... I asked a simple question to someone who was responding to a statement I made - I don't think it's out of line to ask them what they mean.

[Tin Can]

google mod54 and it is the first thing listed



already tried googling, Zak - without a specific reference or context - it's a bit hard to find... I asked a simple question to someone who was responding to a statement I made - I don't think it's out of line to ask them what they mean.

[JW Dewdney]

i tried "KODAK MODEL 54" assuming that's what he was referring to... but found what you mean now. I cannot comment since i'm not familiar with the product - sorry...

[Tin Can]

no problem




i tried "KODAK MODEL 54" assuming that's what he was referring to... but found what you mean now. I cannot comment since i'm not familiar with the product - sorry...

[Dwarak Calayampundi]

I have the mod 54 not impresses with it it is quiet difficult to use I have since purchased a jobo tank with the 4x5 reel

[Terry Moore]

I encourage those of you want a Nikor sheet film tank and reel to keep actively looking. After a couple of years I finally scored one. Yes it's easy to buy one for $275 or more. But if you keep looking you can get one for the same price as a new MOD54 and Paterson 3-reel tank. Persistence is the key.

[macandal]

I encourage those of you want a Nikor sheet film tank and reel to keep actively looking. After a couple of years I finally scored one. Yes it's easy to buy one for $275 or more. But if you keep looking you can get one for the same price as a new MOD54 and Paterson 3-reel tank. Persistence is the key.How much did you pay for your Nikor tank and where? I'm looking for one too.

[Tin Can]

This may be a repeat, but hangers and tanks are the time proven 'best'. Hangers are now cheap used and tanks are what you can find, think creatively. Mix your own chems and stop trying to use as little chem as possible.

Even that Nikon tank is a pain in the ass, compared to hangers.

[Light Guru]

This may be a repeat, but hangers and tanks are the time proven 'best'.

That is opinion. I would say trays are more "time proven" then hangers.

[Tin Can]

Yes, and I use trays all the time, but this thread is about tanks, and Best.


That is opinion. I would say trays are more "time proven" then hangers.

[macandal]

This may be a repeat, but hangers and tanks are the time proven 'best'. Hangers are now cheap used and tanks are what you can find, think creatively. Mix your own chems and stop trying to use as little chem as possible.

Even that Nikon tank is a pain in the ass, compared to hangers.Hangers are okay if you have a darkroom. For some of us who don't, light-safe tanks are it. Hangers are somewhat easy to find, but the tanks, and I'm talking about the metal, 55mL (I think) ones, are almost impossible to find.

[Tin Can]

I use my bathroom. And now I need 5x7 tanks which are impossible to find cheap, so I a buying and cutting down these bottles, http://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-18053/Jars-Jugs-and-Bottles/1-Gallon-F-Style-Jugs-Black

Yes, I must buy a dozen for $30, but I can use the extras for chems.


Hangers are okay if you have a darkroom. For some of us who don't, light-safe tanks are it. Hangers are somewhat easy to find, but the tanks, and I'm talking about the metal, 55mL (I think) ones, are almost impossible to find.

[Leigh]

...the tanks, and I'm talking about the metal, 55mL (I think) ones, are almost impossible to find.
Probably because no such were ever made. I don't know of any developer that requires only 55ml for a 4x5 sheet.

Per the Nikor tank instructions (see attachment) the volume required for 4x5 is 36 ounces (1065 ml).

- Leigh

[macandal]

I don't know of any developer that requires only 55ml for a 4x5 sheet.

Per the Nikor tank instructions (see attachment) the volume required for 4x5 is 36 ounces (1065 ml).

- LeighCouldn't remember what it was. You got it.

My tank uses only 950 mL for 12 sheets.

[gliderbee]

I use my bathroom. And now I need 5x7 tanks which are impossible to find cheap,

You mean like these ? I bought them quite some time ago and I should look up what I paid, but as I remember, they were not that expensive; maybe I was lucky ?

99343

Stefan.

[Tin Can]

I have never seen those and I look everyday.

They look great!


You mean like these ? I bought them quite some time ago and I should look up what I paid, but as I remember, they were not that expensive; maybe I was lucky ?

99343

Stefan.

[gliderbee]

I have never seen those and I look everyday.

They look great!

I never saw them again either, but then, I wasn't really looking fot them.

[Bob Salomon]

You mean like these ? I bought them quite some time ago and I should look up what I paid, but as I remember, they were not that expensive; maybe I was lucky ?

99343

Stefan.

We discontinued the 57 Combiplan (your is the L version) in 1983 and, when we did, we threw away all of the tools and molds to make them. At the same time we also discontinued and discarded the tools for the Combi 35mm and 120/220 roll film tanks as well as the tools for the L top for the 45 CombiPlan system. We continued only manufacturing the 45 CombiPlan T system till last year when the tools finally wore out and the system was discontinued alltogether.

Good systems and they had a long life, started in Germany in the late 50s.

[StoneNYC]

We discontinued the 57 Combiplan (your is the L version) in 1983 and, when we did, we threw away all of the tools and molds to make them. At the same time we also discontinued and discarded the tools for the Combi 35mm and 120/220 roll film tanks as well as the tools for the L top for the 45 CombiPlan system. We continued only manufacturing the 45 CombiPlan T system till last year when the tools finally wore out and the system was discontinued alltogether.

Good systems and they had a long life, started in Germany in the late 50s.

So this is what a combiplane actually looks like? I've always wondered and only heard about them.

Do they seal completely for inversion?

[Bob Salomon]

So this is what a combiplane actually looks like? I've always wondered and only heard about them.

Do they seal completely for inversion?

Back when the 57 version was available there were two different tops available for both the 45 and the 57 versions. One was the L lid, that is what is pictured in the thread. L was for Lab and it was a hard lid that would not work for inversion. The other lid was the T lid which was a rubber compound and which made the tank invertible. On the 45 version there was a light tight hose connector that would let you fill and drain the tank (there was a second one on the side at the bottom) in room light.
The weight of the chemistry in the 57 tank did not allow for that feature.
If you used the L lids there was also a floting lid available as an accessory to help preserve the chemistry.

So yes and no. The T version was invertible and the L version was not.

where in CT?

[gliderbee]

Bob,

Thanks for explaining all this, but I didn't show all I have; please have a look at these pictures: I think these two tanks do have the hose connector at the bottom to drain them, no ? I guess the other two rubber lids are the T lids then and on top is a floating lid.
I never used these, so I don't know if it works ok. I also have all these orange plastic things, and it's not clear to me for all of them what they are meant to do. Is there a manual somewhere of these things ?

9935699357



Back when the 57 version was available there were two different tops available for both the 45 and the 57 versions. One was the L lid, that is what is pictured in the thread. L was for Lab and it was a hard lid that would not work for inversion. The other lid was the T lid which was a rubber compound and which made the tank invertible. On the 45 version there was a light tight hose connector that would let you fill and drain the tank (there was a second one on the side at the bottom) in room light.
The weight of the chemistry in the 57 tank did not allow for that feature.
If you used the L lids there was also a floting lid available as an accessory to help preserve the chemistry.

So yes and no. The T version was invertible and the L version was not.

where in CT?

[StoneNYC]

Back when the 57 version was available there were two different tops available for both the 45 and the 57 versions. One was the L lid, that is what is pictured in the thread. L was for Lab and it was a hard lid that would not work for inversion. The other lid was the T lid which was a rubber compound and which made the tank invertible. On the 45 version there was a light tight hose connector that would let you fill and drain the tank (there was a second one on the side at the bottom) in room light.
The weight of the chemistry in the 57 tank did not allow for that feature.
If you used the L lids there was also a floting lid available as an accessory to help preserve the chemistry.

So yes and no. The T version was invertible and the L version was not.

where in CT?

Oh gotcha, thanks for the info.

Trumbull, it's between Bridgeport and New Haven, why are you in CT?

[Bob Salomon]

Oh gotcha, thanks for the info.

Trumbull, it's between Bridgeport and New Haven, why are you in CT?

Lived in Long Hill, Bridgeport, Darien, North Stamford and Norwalk till I was 30+

[Bob Salomon]

Bob,

Thanks for explaining all this, but I didn't show all I have; please have a look at these pictures: I think these two tanks do have the hose connector at the bottom to drain them, no ? I guess the other two rubber lids are the T lids then and on top is a floating lid.
I never used these, so I don't know if it works ok. I also have all these orange plastic things, and it's not clear to me for all of them what they are meant to do. Is there a manual somewhere of these things ?

9935699357

Sorry, manuals are long gone.
You show the rubber inversion lid for daylight processing, the hard L lid for line processing and a floating lid. You appear to have some Film Retaining Clips as well as some other orange parts I can't ID while in a pile. You have a bag that looks like you have a couple of Light Tight Hose Connectors and a regular Hose Connector in front of one tank and a second one laying in front.

[StoneNYC]

Lived in Long Hill, Bridgeport, Darien, North Stamford and Norwalk till I was 30+

oh well, had thought maybe finally I could meet another LF shooter and learn from them haha

[Filmnut]

For manual processing, I've used a number of methods, but I like the Combiplan tanks the best.
Keith

[Ari]

Jobo 3010: hands down the highest degree of processing quality and ease of use.

[LF_rookie_to_be]

Jobo 3010: hands down the highest degree of processing quality and ease of use.

Couldn't agree more. Great for everything - standard rotation, semi-stand, stand, and of course, C-41 and E-6. Latter two doable flawlessly even without the processor, using a specially modified lid and some simple and cheap water heating. And its bigger sibling 3004 for 8x10.

[nsurit]

Like anything else, the first time you use it in the dark, it can be a little cumbersome. With very little practice the Mod 54 becomes easy. I have both the original and new version. Bought the new one from B&H. Bill Barber

[Leigh]

Jobo 3010: hands down the highest degree of processing quality and ease of use.
But rotary processing doesn't work with compensating developers.

- Leigh

[StoneNYC]

Like anything else, the first time you use it in the dark, it can be a little cumbersome. With very little practice the Mod 54 becomes easy. I have both the original and new version. Bought the new one from B&H. Bill Barber

Do you like the new one? Is it much better than the original?

I just ordered one (20 minutes ago) so hoping to have it by the weekend.

I don't really have a choice, I develop in my sink and I'm currently using an FR tank, it's awful.

The results I get are fine, but it spill everywhere... Haha

[Regular Rod]

For using with compensating developers the Paterson Orbital takes some beating.

Here's how... (http://freepdfhosting.com/f640343f29.pdf)

RR

[europanorama]

What is the taco method?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/digi-film/sets/72157627864733730/

[europanorama]

Since i have never ever developped 4x5 maybe its a silly question. Could a novatank 8x10 be used for 4x5? or is it dangerous for the film touching the uneven sides? maybe i must test develop in water... i have one duotank(duomate?). trimate would be better for inbetween stopper.
For 8x10 one would need a bigger tank since sheet should not pulled out of the chemicals on one side, right?

[Tin Can]

Maybe I missed this, but I just noticed Yankee has affordable new 4x5 hanger tanks. Get some used hangers and this.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=63623&is=REG&A=details&Q=

[feppe]

Jobo 2553 tank and two 2409 reels; lets you develop 12 sheets of 4x5, it's foolproof and consistent.
I think the 2551 tank is for one reel of 6 sheets of 4x5.

2521 is the one that fits six 4x5 sheets. I use it, although I'm considering getting the larger one as it takes most of the day to develop 40+ sheets six at a time (E-6).

The 2409 reel works well, but is a bit fiddly to load under a tent. Sometimes the sheets don't want to stay on the rails, but you get better with practice.

The tank is a joy to use, and it devours chemicals/water you pour in very quickly. Very consistent results; I agitate by hand and don't use any motors or mechanical aids.

[koh303]

But rotary processing doesn't work with compensating developers.
- Leigh

Have you read this?
http://www.jobo.com/jobo_service_analog/jq/jq9502.htm

[Ari]

Jobo 2553 tank and two 2409 reels; lets you develop 12 sheets of 4x5, it's foolproof and consistent.
I think the 2551 tank is for one reel of 6 sheets of 4x5.

I have to update my original post: the Jobo 3010 Expert tank is the best 4x5 developing tank.
I have seen the difference first-hand between it and the reels in a 25xx tank; if you can afford one, or find a deal like I did, buy it right away.

[Leigh]

I just did. It has no information relevant to the issue I brought up.

Compensating developers must be still for a substantial portion of the development time
so that the developing agent can react to exhaustion in areas of high density.

That is not possible with a rotary processor.

Thanks.

- Leigh


Have you read this?
http://www.jobo.com/jobo_service_analog/jq/jq9502.htm

[koh303]

I see - well in that case - such as stand or edra developers, the 2520 tank is ideal, as you only need 1.25L per 6 sheets, they are suspended in the tank, and you can agitate when needed by inversion. The same tank can also be used for roll film (stand or agitation), and as a rotary tank as well....

[Leigh]

the 2520 tank is ideal, as you only need 1.25L per 6 sheets...
The Nikor tank does 12 sheets in 1.0L of solution.

Stop spamming.

- Leigh

[koh303]

The Nikor tank does 12 sheets in 1.0L of solution. Stop spamming.- Leigh
Where can you buy those?

[Leigh]

They come up on the used market frequently. That's where I got mine.

Like I said before... STOP SPAMMING!

- Leigh

[AtlantaTerry]

As a compact, daylight system there simply was/is no better system then the CombiPlan when the instructions were followed.

Mr. Salomon, where might I find the correct instructions for my 4x5 CombiPlan? I bought it from a camera store but it was not in a retail package so I received no instructions.

If you have a link to a website or PDF that would be great.

Thank you.

Terry Thomas...
the photographer
Atlanta, Georgia USA
TerryThomasPhotos{at}gmail

[AtlantaTerry]

After the same research the MOD54 seemed best for home use but it's EXPENSIVE especially if you live in the US and have to ship it...

I still need one... If anyone I selling...

B&H in New York City tries to keep the MOD54 in stock. Their price is US $59.95. If they are currently out of stock you can request them to notify you when new stock arrives.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/906271-REG/Paterson_1174296_MOD54_4x5_Sheet_Film&bi=E15

[AtlantaTerry]

When I did processing in a pro lab I used the typical hangars in large tanks with nitrogen burst agitation. Gosh, I wish I could afford that for personal work.

Back in the '80s when I was shooting a whole lot of 35mm, 120/220 and 4x5 black and white film I had a set of gallon-sized stainless steel tanks with floating lids. (No nitrogen burst.) To me, that is still the best way to process sheet film so I have been buying Kodak #4A stainless steel hangers as they show up on the used market. So far I have about two dozen. Now to find another set of stainless steel tanks...

[StoneNYC]

I see - well in that case - such as stand or edra developers, the 2520 tank is ideal, as you only need 1.25L per 6 sheets, they are suspended in the tank, and you can agitate when needed by inversion. The same tank can also be used for roll film (stand or agitation), and as a rotary tank as well....

1.25L is not at all ideal for anyone who hand processes, most bottles come in 1L not 1.25L what a pain, at least the Paterson & MOD54 combo is only 1L for 6 sheets.

After using the second generation for a while I can say that the sets stay where they are but the edges do get a little scratch marks where the teeth touch the film. I can't understand why the design isn't more like the old FR tanks in that there should be tracks down the whole thing instead of teeth, but either way, it develops fine aside from the teeth scratches (which are outside of the image area).

Any tank that needs more than 1L per 6 sheets is a waste of developer and a pain since most home systems are set for 1L setups.

[Kodachrome25]

Stone, I hate to tell this but since you are really into 4x5 now and could likely stick with it, at some point you are going to want to get a Jobo 3010 drum and at least a cheap Beseler Motor Base...the difference in terms of consistency, needed amounts of chemistry and overall quality will surprise the heck out of you. I loved how easy it was to setup and use the Mod54, but I just never got the quality results out of my $1-2 a sheet film that I shot using my time and $4.00 a gallon gas and related expenses that I do with a 3010 drum.

I pissed and moaned about the price at first and then got one....lets just say it is SO good I now have two. Other people will tell you different things but with the exception of a slosher tray for compensating development, the 3010 drum consistently comes out on top by a fair margin.

You'll know when and if you are ready to move up...

[koh303]

1.25L is not at all ideal for anyone who hand processes, most bottles come in 1L not 1.25L what a pain, at least the Paterson & MOD54 combo is only 1L for 6 sheets.
Any tank that needs more than 1L per 6 sheets is a waste of developer and a pain since most home systems are set for 1L setups.

Actually - the Jobo 2520 only requires a minimum of 270ml when used in rotation for up to 6 sheets, the 1.25L is only in case, for some reason, someone wanted to use the tank for inversion, or stand developing.

[feppe]

1.25L is not at all ideal for anyone who hand processes, most bottles come in 1L not 1.25L what a pain, at least the Paterson & MOD54 combo is only 1L for 6 sheets.

After using the second generation for a while I can say that the sets stay where they are but the edges do get a little scratch marks where the teeth touch the film. I can't understand why the design isn't more like the old FR tanks in that there should be tracks down the whole thing instead of teeth, but either way, it develops fine aside from the teeth scratches (which are outside of the image area).

Any tank that needs more than 1L per 6 sheets is a waste of developer and a pain since most home systems are set for 1L setups.

I run the 2520 with 1 liter of solution with 6 sheets of 4x5 all the time, no issues and very consistent results. I rotate by hand in a warm water bath.

[SChain]

Suggest you watch the YouTube videos by Fred Neuman on BTZS tubes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMXQO5ATgiY. I made my own tubes from ABS plastic pipe which I bought at Lowes. I've had great luck with them and with B&W haven't had any need to turn off the lights when changing chemicals. Fred explains in the video. Here is a link on how to make your own. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum43/47756-btzs-tubes-diy-homemade-build-your-own.html

[AtlantaTerry]

Sorry, manuals are long gone.

Bob, you keep saying that the manuals are not available. Why not save everyone time by creating a tutorial PDF and putting on your website? After all, this is the 21st Century so let's put the Intertubes to use. :)

[AtlantaTerry]

The CombiPlan holds sheet film or glass plates. For sheet film the end plates must have the curved sides facing each other. For glass plates the straight sides must face each other. If you have the wrong sides facing each other or one of each side facing each other you will have problems keeping the film in place and loading the carrier.

Bob,

Having not yet used the HP Combi kit that I purchased from a camera store without the retail package and manual, I never noticed that the film holders can be configured for sheet film and glass plates. The one I have is correctly configured for sheet film so no worries. But for sure if someone along the line had configured it for glass plates, I never would have noticed and would have struggled to understand what was wrong.

Thank you for the tip.

BTW, the kit I purchased has only one of the orange plastic double slot guides. Are there supposed to be two? Where might I purchase a second one?

Terry Thomas...
the photographer
Atlanta, Georgia USA
TerryThomasPhotos{at}gmail

[AtlantaTerry]

:)

Bob,

I just finished giving my HP Combi a good cleaning with Dollar Store dental pre-rinse and an old worn soft toothbrush. I figured the dental rinse would be good because it has no abrasives so would leave no residue.

Upon close examination, I noticed one of the two flexible horizontal bars of the top clip is cracked. How do I go about getting a replacement for that along with the second loading bar.

BTW, the loading bar I have really does not snap into place. It kinda-sorta does but according to what you wrote in a different Combi thread on this website it should snap on and stay in place. At least that's how I read what you wrote.

›

With what seems to be a resurgent interest in large format photography and your HP Combi system in general, have you considered having a new mold made for the tank? I know you wrote that the old one was no longer viable.

Thanks,
Terry

[Jac@stafford.net]

Bob, you keep saying that the manuals are not available. Why not save everyone time by creating a tutorial PDF and putting on your website? After all, this is the 21st Century so let's put the Intertubes to use. :)

http://www.digoliardi.net/combiplan_manual.pdf

[AtlantaTerry]

Thank you for the link!

BTW, has anyone else noticed all the embarrassing mistakes in the PDF instructions?

› on page 3, part number 459419 is shown but never mentioned elsewhere in the text, not even as an optional Accessory as is part number 459418.

› on page 4, Section D starts before Section C starts on page 5. The bold headline of Section D really belongs on page 6.

› at the top of the right hand column of Section C there seems to be some text missing because the first thing we read is "abrupt tilting of the tank from side to side ..." Where is the leading part of the sentence?

› paper is wasted printing pages 7 and 8 because they are blank.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Thank you for the link!

BTW, has anyone else noticed all the embarrassing mistakes in the PDF instructions?

› on page 3, part number 459419 is shown but never mentioned elsewhere in the text, not even as an optional Accessory as is part number 459418.

› on page 4, Section D starts before Section C starts on page 5. The bold headline of Section D really belongs on page 6.

› at the top of the right hand column of Section C there seems to be some text missing because the first thing we read is "abrupt tilting of the tank from side to side ..." Where is the leading part of the sentence?

› paper is wasted printing pages 7 and 8 because they are blank.

Terry, the PDF is editable. You could make a contribution to the rest of us by correcting it. If it is not editable to you, then I would be happy to try to make it so for the benefit of the rest.

Very Best,
Jac

[Jac@stafford.net]

Regarding 'the best', I will note that I was brought into photography via 35mm about 50 years ago when agitation was so very critical and in my early days I did over-agitate sometimes to make the negatives hard to print. The problems were largely due to 'surging' of developer through the reels. I know many of us miniature format photographers went through that.

All the time I thought that agitation was some kind of deformed technique until a person much smarter than I who was also an Royal Air Force aerial recon processor who taught me of constant agitation, spray agitation, and brush agitation.

I did not realize that constant agitation of the right kind was superior. It is. Today all I use for LF is drum processing via economical means as Unicolor or Besler drums. It is a relief. (Sorry - no comments regarding JOBO because I have not the means to buy one.)

[Leigh]

I did not realize that constant agitation of the right kind was superior. It is.
Not for compensating developers like Rodinal.

Compensation works by exhausting the developing agent in areas of high density.

That cannot happen with constant agitation, so you lose the benefit of compensation.

- Leigh

[keithboston]

Bob,
BTW, the kit I purchased has only one of the orange plastic double slot guides. Are there supposed to be two? Where might I purchase a second one?


I believe the earlier packaging had one guide, later versions had two.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob,

I just finished giving my HP Combi a good cleaning with Dollar Store dental pre-rinse and an old worn soft toothbrush. I figured the dental rinse would be good because it has no abrasives so would leave no residue.

Upon close examination, I noticed one of the two flexible horizontal bars of the top clip is cracked. How do I go about getting a replacement for that along with the second loading bar.

BTW, the loading bar I have really does not snap into place. It kinda-sorta does but according to what you wrote in a different Combi thread on this website it should snap on and stay in place. At least that's how I read what you wrote.

›

With what seems to be a resurgent interest in large format photography and your HP Combi system in general, have you considered having a new mold made for the tank? I know you wrote that the old one was no longer viable.

Thanks,
Terry

Terry, there is no reason for two loading bars. It should have only come with one. It fits into the cutouts on the holder and then you can lift the holder up, if desired, by lifting straight up on the loader. The loader does not lock in place and it is removed by pulling the bottom out of the cut outs.

To order parts just call our office 800 735-4373. The reason that the bar on the clib cracked is that the bars were not squeezed when removing it from the top of the holder. That top plate has a ratchet and if you try to pull the clip up without squeezing the bars you will crack the bar. The bars release the ratchet.

There is no way to make new molds at a price that would allow the Combi to go back into production at a reasonable price. And there are other tools that also have to be re-made. It is just that we have run out of tank bodies. The other parts we still have stock of.

[mmerig]

I don't think that one type of tank is inherently better then another, its really personal preference.

I personally prefer the Mod54 in a Paterson 3 reel tank.

Will the MOD54 work in a Nikor tank that holds four 35-mm reels? The Nikor's inside dimensions are: 85 mm diameter by 165 mm long. Maybe I can use one 35-mm reel as a spacer in the Nikor tank along with the MOD54. The reels are steel and 39 mm high.

More simply, if I know the inside dimensions of the Paterson 3-reel tank, I can go from there.

Thanks.

[Bob Salomon]

Thank you for the link!

BTW, has anyone else noticed all the embarrassing mistakes in the PDF instructions?

› on page 3, part number 459419 is shown but never mentioned elsewhere in the text, not even as an optional Accessory as is part number 459418.

› on page 4, Section D starts before Section C starts on page 5. The bold headline of Section D really belongs on page 6.

› at the top of the right hand column of Section C there seems to be some text missing because the first thing we read is "abrupt tilting of the tank from side to side ..." Where is the leading part of the sentence?

› paper is wasted printing pages 7 and 8 because they are blank.

Email me and I will send you later instructions in a pdf. But 7 and 8 are still blank. So don't print them.

[Tin Can]

No, Paterson tanks are 10 to 12mm bigger, I just measured my Nikor and a Paterson.

Nikors used stainless steel reels and Paterson used plastic reels which are bigger.

I loosely measure the Paterson tank to be 97mm, +-5mm.



Will the MOD54 work in a Nikor tank that holds four 35-mm reels? The Nikor's inside dimensions are: 85 mm diameter by 165 mm long. Maybe I can use one 35-mm reel as a spacer in the Nikor tank along with the MOD54. The reels are steel and 39 mm high.

More simply, if I know the inside dimensions of the Paterson 3-reel tank, I can go from there.

Thanks.

[AtlantaTerry]

Bob, thank you for the information. I plan to call you ASAP.

Terry

[mmerig]

No, Paterson tanks are 10 to 12mm bigger, I just measured my Nikor and a Paterson.

Nikors used stainless steel reels and Paterson used plastic reels which are bigger.

I loosely measure the Paterson tank to be 97mm, +-5mm.

Thank you, Randy.

[Corran]

Regarding the Combiplan, I'm having a strange issue. I am getting a thin line of higher density at the bottom of my negatives when I use the Combiplan, both color and b&w, with dip 'n' dunk style processing. Any ideas why? I think it only happens on one negative out of the 6 generally.

[Bob Salomon]

Regarding the Combiplan, I'm having a strange issue. I am getting a thin line of higher density at the bottom of my negatives when I use the Combiplan, both color and b&w, with dip 'n' dunk style processing. Any ideas why? I think it only happens on one negative out of the 6 generally.

You do know that the CombiPlan T was made for inversion processing?

[Corran]

Am I not allowed to use it in other ways? This happens in both the Combiplan tank and slightly larger tanks, while still using the Combiplan holder. So it is something happening with the holder.

[Bob Salomon]

Is the film clip properly in place? Why not try it the way it was designed and see if that makes a difference.

That would call for filling in room light, tapping the tank a couple of times on a table to remove any air bells. Turning the tank upside down and letting the chemistry flow to the opposite end, then repeat. Do this as often as the manufacturer's recommended agitation time. Use the quantity listed on the inside of the top cover for the proper amount of chemistry so it flows properly during agitation.

[Corran]

Film clip is properly in place (it's always on the film edge closest to the bottom though). I've used them for semi-stand development, doing one agitation cycle at the beginning and 30-minute mark, with the same results.

[Bob Salomon]

"Film clip is properly in place (it's always on the film edge closest to the bottom though)."

I don't fully understand what you are saying here.

[Corran]

Sorry, what I meant was - the thin strip of higher density is always on the bottom of the negative, not on top near the clip.

[Regular Rod]

My goodness! What complication! Earlier in this thread you had the answer (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?99577-Best-4x5-Developing-Tank&p=1052099&viewfull=1#post1052099)for the best developing tank for sheet film, if you want control via stand and semi-stand development and to avoid these nasty problems like edge density when you don't want it.

Get yourself a Paterson Orbital Processor, modify it as per the pdf (http://freepdfhosting.com/f640343f29.pdf)and your troubles are over.

:D

RR

[Bob Salomon]

Sorry, what I meant was - the thin strip of higher density is always on the bottom of the negative, not on top near the clip.

Are you using a single tank or multiple tanks?

The Combi tank has a ledge with slots in it to make sure that when filled according to directions, the chemistry runs down the side of the tank when filling. Also, when filling and emptying a Combi according to the directions, through the Light Tight Hose Connector the fill and empty times are the same so parts of the film are not in the chemistry longer then other parts. So you should really process some film according to directions for the tank and see if the results are the same.

[feppe]

Regarding 'the best', I will note that I was brought into photography via 35mm about 50 years ago when agitation was so very critical and in my early days I did over-agitate sometimes to make the negatives hard to print. The problems were largely due to 'surging' of developer through the reels. I know many of us miniature format photographers went through that.

All the time I thought that agitation was some kind of deformed technique until a person much smarter than I who was also an Royal Air Force aerial recon processor who taught me of constant agitation, spray agitation, and brush agitation.

I did not realize that constant agitation of the right kind was superior. It is. Today all I use for LF is drum processing via economical means as Unicolor or Besler drums. It is a relief. (Sorry - no comments regarding JOBO because I have not the means to buy one.)

Could you elaborate what is the "right kind" of constant agitation? Does this apply to E-6 development?

[Corran]

Actually I'm just putting the film directly in the tank, which I pre-fill, obviously in the dark, and agitate directly. Then I put the lid on and turn the lights on.

I understand where you are coming from but I have no interest in using the tanks in that fashion. It's a consistent issue that I am 99% sure is not related to my usage of the tanks, unless you have a specific problem in mind that manifests itself only with dip 'n' dunk processing. For color I have three 2L metal tanks with a water bath that I just use the Combiplan holder for and dip 'n' dunk process with agitation every 15 seconds, and I use the Combiplan tank only for b&w development, both semi-stand and sometimes (rarely) for normal processing. My tank leaks when inverted just like most of them apparently did. It seems to be a flawed product, in my opinion, but works well if not inverting it "like the instructions." That's just my opinion.

[Doc Chevalier]

Hey gang,

This thread is quite long and it would appear that some of the suggestions are no longer around. I am seeking recommendations for a reliable 4x5 sheet film developing tank that is straightforward to load and easy on the chemistry. I presently have a Yankee tank and while it works (mostly), it's a pain in the butt to load up and from time to time I get these odd purple stains on the edges of the sheets. The stains are not consistent and could very well be user error on my part. When I am ready to develop, it's typically 10 sheets (since I only have five film holders). I only shoot B&W on my camera, I'm still very much a newbie with it. I used to do a lot of 35mm B&W processing a long time ago and my recent 4x5 efforts have been decent enough, but I'm hoping that there is a tank that is easier to load and that doesn't slop chemistry all over the place. I see that B&H still sells the Patterson tank and 4x5 reel system. Is this a good choice? I cannot find anyone in Canada that carries either the Jobo line or Combi plan although I think that they may no longer be manufactured.

I apologize if I am repeating a simple question.

Thank you in advance,

Ross

[Bob Salomon]

Actually I'm just putting the film directly in the tank, which I pre-fill, obviously in the dark, and agitate directly. Then I put the lid on and turn the lights on.

I understand where you are coming from but I have no interest in using the tanks in that fashion. It's a consistent issue that I am 99% sure is not related to my usage of the tanks, unless you have a specific problem in mind that manifests itself only with dip 'n' dunk processing. For color I have three 2L metal tanks with a water bath that I just use the Combiplan holder for and dip 'n' dunk process with agitation every 15 seconds, and I use the Combiplan tank only for b&w development, both semi-stand and sometimes (rarely) for normal processing. My tank leaks when inverted just like most of them apparently did. It seems to be a flawed product, in my opinion, but works well if not inverting it "like the instructions." That's just my opinion.

If the tank leaks when inverted then we replace the top. That will stop the leaking. To do that you need to call us. The call is free and so is the replacement. 800 735-4373 x15

[Regular Rod]

Hey gang,

This thread is quite long and it would appear that some of the suggestions are no longer around. I am seeking recommendations for a reliable 4x5 sheet film developing tank that is straightforward to load and easy on the chemistry. I presently have a Yankee tank and while it works (mostly), it's a pain in the butt to load up and from time to time I get these odd purple stains on the edges of the sheets. The stains are not consistent and could very well be user error on my part. When I am ready to develop, it's typically 10 sheets (since I only have five film holders). I only shoot B&W on my camera, I'm still very much a newbie with it. I used to do a lot of 35mm B&W processing a long time ago and my recent 4x5 efforts have been decent enough, but I'm hoping that there is a tank that is easier to load and that doesn't slop chemistry all over the place. I see that B&H still sells the Patterson tank and 4x5 reel system. Is this a good choice? I cannot find anyone in Canada that carries either the Jobo line or Combi plan although I think that they may no longer be manufactured.

I apologize if I am repeating a simple question.

Thank you in advance,

Ross

The Paterson Orbital Processor (http://freepdfhosting.com/f640343f29.pdf)as mentioned above will let you process 4 sheets of 4x5 at a time, avoiding all those pitfalls and letting you keep control of the process.

RR

[koh303]

Hey gang,
I see that B&H still sells the Patterson tank and 4x5 reel system. Is this a good choice? I cannot find anyone in Canada that carries either the Jobo line or Combi plan although I think that they may no longer be manufactured.
Ross

Jobo tanks (both the 2500 system tanks and reels as well as the Expert drums) are being made and are readily available to the north american market, so are paterson tanks and mod54 reels.

[AtlantaTerry]

Well, I went and did it. I ran some film in the HP Combi for the first time.

To make things easy, I set up some plastic Dollar Store tanks on my bathroom sink countertop:
› distilled water pre-wash
› HP Combi with 36 ounces of D-76 stock (not 1:1) per the Massive Dev Chart
› Kodak Indicator Stop Bath
› Kodak Fixer (hardening type)

I used a spare plastic tank for several jobs such as Kodak Hypo Eliminator, wash, Kodak Photo-Flo, etc. (I need to pick up a couple more of those Dollar Store tanks.)

BTW, in the past with 4x5 Kodak films such as Tri-X, I never used a pre-wash. But several people on the web mentioned that Shanghai film had a heavy anti-halation backing so a pre-wash was a good thing. Otherwise the hardener in the fixer can lock some of the backing in place, not good. Not knowing any better, I gave the film a 5 minute pre-wash. The film had no crud on it when dried so 5 minutes musta worked well.

The good old Massive Dev chart said to use slow continuous agitation with the Shanghai ISO 50 film and D-76 stock, so I did. The lid of the HP Combi fit snugly. I knew from reading this thread that Bob said to press firmly on the corners of the soft lid to seat it completely. I did. No problems with leaks from the top while inverting during the slow agitation. I was concerned that the film would fall out of the grooves but the HP Combi's excellent top clip design prevented any film from getting loose. Nice!

Other tips I read on the Internet said to not put plastic products such as an HP Combi into contact with Photo Flo because the plastic evidently binds with the hydrocarbons in the Flo and bad things can happen over time. It's was on the Internet, so it must be true. :-) So after the hypo eliminator bath, I transferred each sheet of film from the Combi to one of my many Kodak #4A stainless steel sheet film holders for the rest of the washing followed by a soak in distilled water + Photo Flo. Then I hung them in the shower to dry.

The only real problem I had (other than sweating like a fat guy in a sauna) was the bottom drain of my HP Combi leaked (remember, I bought it used). Also the prior owner must have over-squeezed the top film clip so hard that one of the two horizontal bars cracked. So today I called Bob Salomon and ordered some parts to fix the problems. Thanks Bob for the GREAT support!

After practicing loading some dead film into the HP Combi while watching TV once I got into the darkroom everything went well. But I did make one goof. When I was teaching myself how to load the HP Combi, I learned how to touch the film (top and bottom) to make sure there was a gap between each sheet. If no gap, that meant two sheets were in one groove. Sure enough, when I loaded sheet #2 of 6, it was in the groove with sheet #1. I could tell in the dark because there was only one gap between the sheets instead of two. So I gently eased the two sheets of film apart and in the dark with no Combi Film Guide in place, I loaded sheet #2 into it's proper groove. Easy to do, because I practiced how to do it by touch. So for anyone reading this, be sure to train yourself in the light to do all the loading using some dead sheets of film so you can do it all by feel in the dark.

In looking at the dried Shanghai film, I was disappointed to see tiny clear round dots on the film. No, they were not air bells, not after a five minute pre-soak where I made sure to tap the film rack to release any. I bought that 25 sheet box of Shanghai about six months ago and read that some other folks were mentioning manufacturer defects, too. I told the guy who brings the film into the US that I was concerned and he really didn't want to replace it because, for him, there is little profit in each sale. The other day I ordered a second box which is on the way. IF that new batch of Shanghai also exhibits problems that is where they and I will come to a parting of the ways. I have some Ilford HP5+ on hand. Maybe I should shoot some of that to see if I get the same tiny round spots. If I do, then the problem is with my technique.

[gevalia]

StonyNYC,

I bought a Mod54 just last week from B&H so I'm sure they still have them in stock. I personally have been using the HP Combi tank for 6+ years now I believe. The top leaked more than I was comfortable with for about 2 months but after that I guess it just softened a bit and it has not leaked since. It drains slower than I would like and I adjust development accordingly but it is a good tank and is serving me well. I like it. I actually but replacement parts last week from B&H as well just in case - since it is out of production now. As for the MOD54, I bought it so I would have something down the road and as a backup on the Combi. But I would check B&H for a MOD54 with the Paterson tank it goes in.

[dasBlute]

Jobo tanks (both the 2500 system tanks and reels as well as the Expert drums) are being made and are readily available to the north american market, so are paterson tanks and mod54 reels.

I do not believe that the expert [say, 3005 or 3010] tanks are being made anymore,
can you provide evidence to the contrary?

-Tim

[koh303]

Sure - i was at the Jobo factory in Gummersbach a few months ago watching the drums being constructed.
Here are a couple of photos from that visit. The lady in the photos is Rita, who is in charge of construction of the Expert drums, which can be seen wrapped, drying, as part of production.
101868101867

You can see her briefly on this video as well, completing construction of a Jobo 3005 Expert drum...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqDxCybsH4I

3005, 3010 and 3063 drums are regular stock items for us... These are new production items.
As a matter of fact, we get regular shipments of Expert drums, which are being made as we speak.

I hope that is enough evidence :)

[Captain_joe6]

I'd say thats pretty reliable proof.

While "best" is a subjective term even on the nicest days (see how I avoided the pun there?), I'd still argue that the Jobo Expert 4x5/8x10 tanks are the most well-conceived and well-executed tanks yet produced, from both a processing and systemic perspective. You've got tanks that are meant to yield consistent, even, repeatable results, provided they are used within the confines of the Jobo system. Brilliant marketing? Certainly, but at the same time, you've got a company saying "Look, if you use our products in the way they were designed, you basically can't fail, and you're film will be as good as the base exposure you made, every time, all the time."

What other system offers that sort of conceptual backing?

[jk0592]

I use a JOBO 2521, but never got around putting more than 4 sheets in the 2509 spiral.
Hand inversion went well, as I was used to JOBO 1520 for 120 film. But with the necessary 1.5 L of HC-110 dil B, my developer reserves going down fast. Perhaps using another developer, not one shot, would save on purchasing hassle. Of course, keep the stop bath and keep the fixer. Now trying manually rolling the 2521 on the JOBO rollers, with less developer.
One advantage of the 2521 tank/2509 spiral is that there is no need to remove the film sheets for the washing cycle, just put a hose down the spiral core to the tank bottom and there you go, using exactly the same set up for all formats.

[Regular Rod]

I use a JOBO 2521, but never got around putting more than 4 sheets in the 2509 spiral.
Hand inversion went well, as I was used to JOBO 1520 for 120 film. But with the necessary 1.5 L of HC-110 dil B, my developer reserves going down fast. Perhaps using another developer, not one shot, would save on purchasing hassle. Of course, keep the stop bath and keep the fixer. Now trying manually rolling the 2521 on the JOBO rollers, with less developer.
One advantage of the 2521 tank/2509 spiral is that there is no need to remove the film sheets for the washing cycle, just put a hose down the spiral core to the tank bottom and there you go, using exactly the same set up for all formats.

1) - Developer that is still a one shot but is dirt cheap to make up would be OBSIDIAN AQUA, standard working solution is 1:500, it goes a long way.
2) - Tank that only needs 500ml for four sheets of 4x5 would be the Paterson Orbital Processor used basically as a tray but with a daylight lid.

Some modifications to the Processor and to the Method of using it are necessary but they are all easy to accommodate. Here's how. (http://freepdfhosting.com/f640343f29.pdf)

Washing process is the same routine as the ILFORD recommendations only the agitation is tray type instead of inversions.

RR

[HoodedOne]

Although I'm new to the 'develop your own film' thing. I want to give a vote for the Paterson Orbital.

But if you want to develop x-ray film, don't do the conversion that's mentioned earlier in this topic. Whitout this conversion, I've no problem developing x-ray 8x10 film with just 120ml of developer (Rodinal). And the negatives come out with very few scratches.

[Regular Rod]

Although I'm new to the 'develop your own film' thing. I want to give a vote for the Paterson Orbital.

But if you want to develop x-ray film, don't do the conversion that's mentioned earlier in this topic. Whitout this conversion, I've no problem developing x-ray 8x10 film with just 120ml of developer (Rodinal). And the negatives come out with very few scratches.

Are you agitating constantly with X-Ray film and just 120ml of developer, wash, fixer etc.?

RR

[HoodedOne]

Are you agitating constantly with X-Ray film and just 120ml of developer, wash, fixer etc.?

RR


Yes, I'm agitating constantly for 6min (@20 C). I just use the Massive Dev. Chart app.

[Regular Rod]

If you do use panchromatic film in future and you want to use stand or semi-stand development you will need 500ml of developer etc. so the mods will be needed. They have no deleterious effect when you go back to constant agitation for X-Ray (or colour) film. The mods are there to help when you need the film to be covered completely in the tray when stationary.

RR

[HoodedOne]

Just to clarify. I'm a nood when it comes to developing 8x10.
I've only developed 6 sheets of x-ray film so far. But, I've read everything I could find on using the Orbital for developing film. That also includes the PDF that's mentioned a couple of times in this topic.

Because x-ray is double-sided I was very cautious on doing anything to the inside of the tray. Most tips on using Panchromatic film with the Orbital, advise sanding and/or adding "bumps".
I did some test with my first 6 sheets of x-ray film. And I can now safely say, that sanding 'might' work. But, adding bumps will ruin the emulsion on the x-ray film. And I've no intension on bleaching the damaged side of the film.
Why 'might' sanding work! The area around the peg-holes was causing scratches on the x-ray film. So I sanded them down a bit. And this worked great with my last two sheets of film. But it still has not convinced me, in doing the whole inside area of the Orbital.
I did remove the two arms on the top part of the Orbital. Because I could see some damage on the film because of them (very faint though). But that might also be caused, by me agitating too wildly.

When i decide to use Panchromatic film (still have some Delta 100 4x5 lying around). i would probably try out the same method as with the x-ray film. I did a test with a 8x10 sheet I found, when I bought my film holders. And I have no problem in keeping the sheet, from sticking to the bottom. And that, with only 120ml of developer. So using 4 times as much developer for a stand/semi-stand developing, does not even seems like a good idea.

[ki6mf]

I settled on the combi plan and have four of them, buy extra parts as they are out of production. I found the size up to 6 negatives-processed at once to be good for my personal use. I never had any drainage issues that were not my own fault things like not sealing the flexible top on the plastic body or when tapping the body for air bubbles cracking the bottom drain when I hit the edge of my sink DUH!

[Bob Salomon]

I settled on the combi plan and have four of them, buy extra parts as they are out of production. I found the size up to 6 negatives-processed at once to be good for my personal use. I never had any drainage issues that were not my own fault things like not sealing the flexible top on the plastic body or when tapping the body for air bubbles cracking the bottom drain when I hit the edge of my sink DUH!

Afraid you are jumping to a conclusion. We have all of the parts for the Combi Plan 45 system in stock, in pleantiful quanties, except for the tank body itself which is no longer available.

So yes, the Combi is out of production and will not go back into production but all parts, excep for the tank, are readily available.