Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone! I decided to go with a single 12x16 tray after reading all of your comments. Some comments for any future readers:
- Most eBay sellers weren't sure if their print drums had all the necessary parts or were functional.
- I heeded the reports of extended cleanup time with drums or the possibility of spilling.
- I enjoy seeing the print as it develops for no particular reason. This was not a major deciding factor.
I'm still willing to give a drum a shot at some point. I'm okay with this tray for now. Some cons about using a single tray:
- A 12x16 Patterson tray needs at least 2000mL of chemistry to cover an 11x14 sized sheet of paper. It would require around 2200-2500mL to cover a 12x16 sized sheet.
- Dumping the chemistry back into beakers in low light was difficult until I learned how to work around it. In general, using a single tray makes the process more tedious but not so much more tedious it's unjustifiable (to me).
- According to Lina Bessonova's testing, you need a long wash or several static water baths to ensure archival results on fiber paper, even with hypo-wash. It would take all day to make a handful of fiber prints in succession with a single tray unless I cut the wash time drastically. I'll figure out how to address this later.
- I realized that the way I did test strips would have to change. I tried testing with an 8x10 sized sheet of paper, but the results didn't translate well to the 10x10 sized image. I think it's because I couldn't see enough of the image to determine how much light was necessary.
-11x14 rc paper and fiber paper are so expensive that every mistake hurts. It took four failed prints before making this rough one that I still don't appreciate all that much. I think it could look better with more work, but the cost is prohibitive. The challenge is a double-edged sword because I enjoy looking at the bigger size print enough to work harder to make nice pictures.
Bookmarks