Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 70

Thread: 8x10 film processing

  1. #41
    Unwitting Thread Killer Ari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    5,101

    Re: 8x10 film processing

    To add to the chorus, and my first comment, the 3005 is the most fool-proof way of developing 8x10 sheet film.
    In addition to trays, I've also tried the "cheap Jobo" method of using a print drum with clips.
    This is a decent, cost-effective way to develop 8x10 (or larger).
    It all seems great until you shoot the best portrait of your life, and open the drum to find the film stuck to the drum exactly where the subject's face was.
    That's the moment I decided to get the 3005.
    Last edited by Ari; 29-Nov-2019 at 19:28.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area, California
    Posts
    77

    Re: 8x10 film processing

    Does the Jobo 3005 work well for slightly-smaller than 8x10 sizes of film? I am specifically wondering about developing whole plate 6.5" x 8.5" film and 4" x 10" film in the 3005.

  3. #43
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    6,908

    Re: 8x10 film processing

    I don't see why not. I regularly process 4x5 in a tank that goes up to 5x7.
    You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.
    ― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing you don't already know

  4. #44
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    7,341

    Re: 8x10 film processing

    Quote Originally Posted by cp_photo View Post
    Does the Jobo 3005 work well for slightly-smaller than 8x10 sizes of film? I am specifically wondering about developing whole plate 6.5" x 8.5" film and 4" x 10" film in the 3005.
    The 3005 is designed for 5x7 to 8x10....so whole plate should be no problem. I had not thought about 4x10 before in a 3005 (I use a modified darkslide to get two 4x10s on a sheet of 8x10). I can not think of any reason 4x10 would not work well in a 3005. I'd be curious if any 4x10 users have gone this route.
    "Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    611

    Re: 8x10 film processing

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    I've chem and air room temperature at 20C, so total consistence.

    In most cases it's irrelevant having a little shift in the development degree, 20s more or less equivalent development is irrelevant, you adjust paper grade later.
    When you've got multiple sheets to process on a routine basis, consistency matters. A machine makes it much easier & 24c processing speeds things along. And if your claim is that tray processing allows for individual sheet alterations in timing, haven't you undermined that by saying that you can just adjust the grade at printing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    What I obtain with reduced agitation, when I use it, is relatively less dense highlights compared with the mids. There are situations where you want that, night photography for example.
    Or you could just reduce the process time appropriately.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    I night photography film sensitometric curve is deformated by the higher LIRF in the shadows and mids, while highlights don't have LIRF, in that situation you want to slow development in the highlights by not removing free bromide from the emulsion, so you obtain easier to print highlights that have been developed with a locally higher restrainer concentration.
    This is symptomatic of both overthinking on the basis of half understood theory and lack of experience based understanding. Plenty of people make perfectly printable and aesthetically competent night pictures on film without resorting to excessive N- conniptions. Why? Because they don't get bogged down in trying to reproduce irrelevant tonalities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    What is a waste of time is having to make masks because we have not crafted the right printable negative. No doubt that USM masking adds acutance, and that masking is powerful, but if we make a negative that's easily printable like we want then we have an advantage.
    Making a good, printable negative is easy. What I was taking issue with was the emphasis on agitation techniques that have extremely limited effects compared to unsharp masking or controlled fogging. And if done competently, masking has none of the tonal defects of excessive N- processing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    I guess that we have two different ways, one is making a bullet proof linear negative that has flexibility for intensive image manipulations in the printing. The other way is crafting a negative that prints easy like we want, at the possible cost of less flexibility, because the compressions we make in the toe/shoulder have no way back.
    Rather than guessing, try the films. It's often about the steepness & separation of shadow gradient relative to maintaining separation in the highlights without compression. And whether you like punchier prints or ones with a large range of tonalities.

  6. #46
    tgtaylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    4,310

    Re: 8x10 film processing

    Quote Originally Posted by Ari View Post
    To add to the chorus, and my first comment, the 3005 is the most fool-proof way of developing 8x10 sheet film.
    In addition to trays, I've also tried the "cheap Jobo" method of using a print drum with clips.
    This is a decent, cost-effective way to develop 8x10 (or larger).
    It all seems great until you shoot the best portrait of your life, and open the drum to find the film stuck to the drum exactly where the subject's face was.
    That's the moment I decided to get the 3005.
    Yesterday morning I shot 2 sheets of 8x10 and decided to develop them that afternoon. With 2 or more sheets to process I have been using the 3005 but I decided to use the 2830 to see if filling the drum with water after the last rinse would improve the sheets removal. It did! It took about 4 liters of water to completely fill the tank but as I suspected the sheets lifted out as if lubricated - which they were with the water. When the water is completely drained from the tank they tend to cling to the sides which hinders their removal. But I have never experienced any scratches on the base and I suspect that those that did had loaded the sheets with the emulsion side to the wall instead of facing inward. Anyway if you use the 2830 to develop 1 or 2 sheets, it's worth the time to completely fill the tank with water to remove the sheets.

    Thomas

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,313

    Re: 8x10 film processing

    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    When you've got multiple sheets to process on a routine basis, consistency matters. A machine makes it much easier & 24c processing speeds things along. And if your claim is that tray processing allows for individual sheet alterations in timing, haven't you undermined that by saying that you can just adjust the grade at printing?
    Ansel Adams primarily used sheet film developed in trays, but also Karsh and Weston, enough said ?

    Temperature control/consistency in a Jobo is not that good for BW in summer, it can heat up the bath but it cannot refrigerate it if darkroom temperature is higher.

    I've total consistence with tray processing, it requires a bit of attention to agitate in a consistent way. You can make inconsistent jobs in rotary if you want, there are many factors like developer freshness, accurate mix, film batch...

    Being consistent or not it is a personal choice, it matters sometimes, not always. But consistency does not depends on rotary vs trays. Personally I prefer trays, I've only one thing aganist rotary: I like additional control from agitation to craft my negative like I want, which I use only some 1/5 of the times, but most of the times if it's a (personally) important shot.

    I this case we cannot tell OP what's best, we may tell the nuances of different ways.

    Anyway, no doubt trays is best for starting, because the low investment (a used paper safe) and total simplicity and no headaches.



    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    Or you could just reduce the process time appropriately.
    Interneg, not the same, with reduced agitation we selectively slow more the development in the highlights, it also may boost "microcontrast". You should be aware of that, aren't you?

    Sometime ago I analyzed the result in several negatives for Steve Sherman, we analyzed the tonal dispersion in several textures compared to the full range in the negative, and what he has been saying is true, I've no doubt. You may want that effect or not for an image, but it's a resource we may use. With trays we dose that effect to the point we want: continuous, reduced, semi-stand and stand...

    Understand me, YMMV. Trays vs rotary is not about what's best, it's about what we prefer for a certain job.



    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    This is symptomatic of both overthinking on the basis of half understood theory and lack of experience based understanding.
    Hey, interneg, don't go this way. Avoid personal disacreditation and all will be fine. Understood?


    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    Plenty of people make perfectly printable and aesthetically competent night pictures on film without resorting to excessive N- conniptions. Why? Because they don't get bogged down in trying to reproduce irrelevant tonalities.
    This is wrong, the N you may need depends on SBR you have in the shooting, some scenes require a powerful contraction, some not. If you are to make masks later you may allow higher densities in the neg, this is true... one may desing a good negative like Steve or he can make masks like you.

    This is a personal choice. We have many powerful resources and each photographer/printer has his own set of preferred tools.

    In photography there are image hunters and image sculptors, what are you?


    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    Rather than guessing, try the films. It's often about the steepness & separation of shadow gradient relative to maintaining separation in the highlights without compression. And whether you like punchier prints or ones with a large range of tonalities

    interneg, by now you should have understood that I don't guess, I calibrate.

    This was only my second 8x10" shot, 4 years ago, I spent 4 weekends preparing that shot and by then I nailed all predicted densities before shutter release in each of those spots:

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...5/28693688313/


    Now, 4 years later, I have a powerful self made software tool to speed up calibrations and I calibrate eaiser than I breath: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ation-software


    Forget personal disacreditation and you won't be rammed, it's up to you.

    Please get used to debate without personal disacreditation and all will be fine, both we'll enjoy a nice technical debate, without mud.

    Still I've a lot to learn, but also you.
    Last edited by Pere Casals; 1-Dec-2019 at 06:08.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    611

    Re: 8x10 film processing

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    Ansel Adams primarily used sheet film developed in trays, but also Karsh and Weston, enough said ?
    Karsh used deep tanks and inspection. Weston used inspection too. If you have a decent number of sheets to process, and don't want the headaches of running deep tanks or have the urge to inspect your negs, a machine makes life a lot easier. And Adams spends a lot of his writings talking about how often he messed up important exposures & had to work to rectify them afterwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    Temperature control/consistency in a Jobo is not that good for BW in summer, it can heat up the bath but it cannot refrigerate it if darkroom temperature is higher.
    It isn't difficult to cool the machine down, besides which several models have cold water inlet valves or can be used on a temperature controlled water supply. If you're processing a few sheets of BW only, then trays are fine, but if colour etc and bigger quantities of film become necessary, then the Jobo becomes worth its weight in gold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    ...Personally I prefer trays, I've only one thing aganist rotary: I like additional control from agitation to craft my negative like I want, which I use only some 1/5 of the times, but most of the times if it's a (personally) important shot

    ...with reduced agitation we selectively slow more the development in the highlights, it also may boost "microcontrast".

    ...Sometime ago I analyzed the result in several negatives for Steve Sherman, we analyzed the tonal dispersion in several textures compared to the full range in the negative, and what he has been saying is true, I've no doubt. You may want that effect or not for an image, but it's a resource we may use. With trays we dose that effect to the point we want: continuous, reduced, semi-stand and stand...
    If you really knew anything of Karsh's technique (or many other photographers - this technique is as old as the hills) you would learn they were getting to the same end point by simpler methods. Aim your negative to the hardest grade you dare - by whatever means necessary - and your microcontrast & apparent sharpness will go up dramatically, even if you don't use an unsharp mask. You really don't need to fiddle with agitation regimes either - Karsh was using replenished DK-50 in deep tanks. Even if you are working with a single grade of paper you will very rarely need more than a couple of development times.

    Oh, and film grain distribution follows a bell curve, thus the most apparent grain will be in the mid tone range of a particular film's characteristic curve, not at a specific point on a generic scale.




    The rest of your (self defeating) threats you can take up with the moderators when they presumably have to turn up to scrub this thread (again).

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,313

    Re: 8x10 film processing

    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    a machine makes life a lot easier.
    Not my life

    This is how I had the ATL 2500+ yesterday , I make a new control electronics, I substitute the distributor+malta cross by 6 solenoid valves plus a servo... We have all the drums, Experts, etc and it will work nice when all fully automated, we plan to do a good job.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20191130_181338.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	49.9 KB 
ID:	198050

    It will make C-41, E-6 and RA-4, and some BW. For sure a share of the BW will be done in tray

    This is the flowchart I'm implementing:

    ATL FLOW - MAIN CONTROL_V02.pdf



    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    It isn't difficult to cool the machine down, besides which several models have cold water inlet valves or can be used on a temperature controlled water supply.
    This is interesting, our tap water is always under 20C. From your observation, I'll add that feature in the firmware, for BW if bath is over 20C then Control will open the bath water inlet valve until temp is in the right value.



    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    but if colour etc and bigger quantities of film become necessary, then the Jobo becomes worth its weight in gold.
    No doubt, we are to use 6 bath pro chem, so even a cpe2 would be a crucifixion. Also a minium amount of chem is used, so for color we have no doubts.




    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    You really don't need to fiddle with agitation regimes either
    I've been experimenting with agitation. The effect is irrelevant for the hybrid because Ps eats everything, but I find it quite useful for optic printing. I found that I easily pull a full zone in the highlights by controlling agitation, and this solves a part of the printing.



    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    Oh, and film grain distribution follows a bell curve, thus the most apparent grain will be in the mid tone range of a particular film's characteristic curve, not at a specific point on a generic scale.
    This depends on the film, for HP5 you have grain peaking in the mids, for TXP grain peaks in the shadows which adds the TX classic dramatism, but this is more for MF, in LF I don't see much the grain.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    611

    Re: 8x10 film processing

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    This is interesting, our tap water is always under 20C. From your observation, I'll add that feature in the firmware, for BW if bath is over 20C then Control will open the bath water inlet valve until temp is in the right value.
    Check out section 5.9 in the ATL2x00 documentation - it's solenoid controlled already, so you should just need to find its terminals. The bits that tend to break in the Autolabs that are hard to repair are usually the control systems, on machines that are otherwise pretty repairable, so if you can make those parts more easily serviceable, then it might save a few from scrappage. Having to deal with Autolabs on a routine basis has convinced me that for my own purposes the CPP machines cause less down time. The CPP's are however drastically less idiot resistant - and this is in the context of having seen how many stupid things people can do with an ATL - thankfully rarely damaging anything other than their own film. Get a certified & calibrated thermometer too - even Jobo say not to rely purely on their own internal thermometer - their systems tend to use a 'drift through' approach to temperature control.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    No doubt, we are to use 6 bath pro chem, so even a cpe2 would be a crucifixion. Also a minium amount of chem is used, so for color we have no doubts.
    If you do anything bigger than 4x5, my opinion is that the best use of a CPE is to convert it into something like the TBE-2 tempering bath...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    I've been experimenting with agitation. The effect is irrelevant for the hybrid because Ps eats everything, but I find it quite useful for optic printing. I found that I easily pull a full zone in the highlights by controlling agitation, and this solves a part of the printing.
    If you find that easier to do than by cutting process time, so be it. At the end of the day it achieves the same effect. Go too far however & it'll flatten the mids.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    This depends on the film, for HP5 you have grain peaking in the mids, for TXP grain peaks in the shadows which adds the TX classic dramatism, but this is more for MF, in LF I don't see much the grain.
    Not quite - what you perceive as the 'midtone' isn't what the film perceives as such - where the grain is most apparent is where the film's characteristic curve (under the particular exposure & process conditions) believes the midtone to be located - rightly or wrongly.

Similar Threads

  1. SP-2810- 8x10 Film Processing System
    By Daniel.E in forum Kickstarter Announcements
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 6-Jun-2017, 22:46
  2. E-6 Film Processing Services 8x10
    By Panoman617 in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 27-Mar-2011, 02:30
  3. 8x10 film processing
    By Robert Vigurs in forum Darkroom: Equipment
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 17-Jun-2010, 19:56
  4. Processing 8X10 film
    By David Grandy in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 6-Sep-2000, 16:10

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •