Artifex beta 8x10 daylight tank

[pau3]

I’ve seen this new developing tank, up to six sheets at a time. Has anyone tried it? It seems very interesting, but I’m specially concerned about the ability to obtain even development. I’d appreciate any first hand opinions.

Best,
Pau

[aaronnate]

I have not used it but I would be concerned with the length of time it would take to fill the tank. I used a combiplan 4x5, which looks like a similar design, for several years and did not have uneven development. An 8x10 sheet is a lot bigger. This would concern me. Now, if you filled it with chemicals first then loaded the film in darkness, and put the lid on that uneven development concern would vanish.

[williaty]

A googling didn't turn up much. Can you provide some info on whom you're talking about and in what country they're doing business?

If they're inside the US, their due diligence research should have turned up the fact that there's an existing business working in the photo trade called Artifex. If they're in Zimbabwe or something, no harm no foul.

[esearing]

20 seconds to fill and about 10 seconds to drain in the video - so in practice one might use this with dilute development and extended time so you get more even development.

[Fred L]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdJWozMqpCs

looks interesting and it fills faster than I thought it would.

[Tin Can]

The film sheath is not a new idea. The back slots may be.

Calumet offered Stainless Steel film sheaths for film processing in their Gas burst system.

Calumet filled the tanks first then put the film in.

Not sure why this new tank fills after. It most likely could be used either way.

810 Film sheath SS Calumet by TIN CAN COLLEGE, on Flickr

[pau3]

In fact, my main concern is the following. Combiplan uses 1 liter of chemistry to develop 6 sheets of 4x5 film, aproximately
(in fact, a little more). This tank uses 2 liters to develop 6 sheets of 8x10 film. This means that Artifex tank is proportionaly thinner
than the Combiplan. It seems that this is achieved by pairing sheets. But the tank has to be still rather thin. So my question is: is there enough
room to let the developer move around without creating surge marks? Another related question: which would be the right agitation pattern,
in the non continuous setting?

As I've said, it seems an interesting tank. The ability to develop 6 sheets at a time would make my life easier. I've done a lot of tray developing,
but it's a method I don't enjoy to use. I also prefer conventional, non continuous agitation patterns, which rules out many other options as well.
So this tank seems to be a good solution. But, since its price is not particularly low (around 500 euros, 440 sterling pounds), I'd like to hear the opinion of someone that has used it before buying it.

I'll try to ask the same questions to the manufacturers, but I'd like to read an independent opinion.

[Tim V]

Interesting tank, but like others I'd be concerned about the length of time it takes to fill and the agitation scheme such a tank allows, especially because I prefer to use PMK (or other pyro developers) that are finicky.

[John Earley]

$570 + shipping from Italy???

I've using an SP-445 successfully so I'd love to try one but considering the price I think there are enough other options that are already proven.

[MartinP]

Can you try a dip-and-dunk cage in a deep tank? Great agitation (with decent hangers that fit the cage, no swirling) and replenishable developer possibilities. No filling or draining time problems. I spent years developing sheets at work using this technique and was very happy with it. Now I'm rarely doing 8x10"anymore (just a few pinholes) I use a slosher in a tray for one sheet at a time and that works too, but much less efficiently for any quantity greater than one of course.

I suppose really my meaning is that developing in the dark is simple, cheap and effective and there is no need to be scared of it or to write-off the technique.