Stearman developing Issue

[Tin Can]

Welcome to the Forum

Each of us must find our way, as we all have variables

I use DISTILLED water for all developers, as water stop and with TF5

I've tried using this tank over the last there years as I slowly got involved with LF. I started with the Harmann Paper Positives, but had the shadows of the holder on the paper.. but as I had other problems like pre-flashing, film speed and duuhhh ..reversed images. in that "I could've had a V8 moment, I moved to film. The film I used was ADOX CHS II and while some were semi ok, almost all my negatives had traces of shadows in the light ( sky) areas. I wasted most of Adox honing my loading skills and taking care etc, that these were not user induced. Stearman offered the Ver 4 holders, which are quite different. Now using Fomopan, then new holder etc have not made any improvement. I suspect I will have to move on. But I did want to try and resolve why some of us are having these problems. With Fomopan, roll films I usually pre-soak to get rid the anti-halation backing. I then rinse the film clear, thae begin development usually D76 1:1 , Stop with water circa 1:00 min, and then fix for five, sometimes ten minutes.
Since I've read a bit on Stearman site, saying don't pre-soak. I tried that . Another time I've kept agitation constant during the fix cycle with and without pre-soak. I really wanted this to work.. Love the design and economic chemical use. I'd like to hear from others.. what film/developed combos have worked. Not all anti-halatrion backings are colored? But color or not, is this the problem? The PH of the water? I have not conciously made a distilled water test as my (gallon) developer is now mixed with tap water. as is the 1 liter fixer. Film isn't cheap and will eventually try this later with ony distilled weter. Not yet ready to waste another four frames, buy new film and different chemicals.

[Michael R]

Chuck,

Equipment/process design is a balancing act (you can't have everything). In the case of sheet film development there are various things to consider, and different makers and photographers prioritize them differently. The Stearman tank design prioritizes small size and low solution volumes (and obviously daylight processing) over processing quality and tolerance/flexibility. This means among other things outcomes will be more sensitive to the various variables involved - everything from film type to chemicals to agitation technique.

One design choice was to have the holders make contact with the base side of the film within the image area. As a consequence, no matter how many times they change those contact points, there will always be a chance you get some base marring (not reversible post-process, but may not show up in prints) and/or retained anti-halation dyes (can [usually/mostly] be removed post-process). This can depend on the film, agitation and occasionally the chemicals used (not your tap water pH specifically which is irrelevant).

Michael

I've tried using this tank over the last there years as I slowly got involved with LF. I started with the Harmann Paper Positives, but had the shadows of the holder on the paper.. but as I had other problems like pre-flashing, film speed and duuhhh ..reversed images. in that "I could've had a V8 moment, I moved to film. The film I used was ADOX CHS II and while some were semi ok, almost all my negatives had traces of shadows in the light ( sky) areas. I wasted most of Adox honing my loading skills and taking care etc, that these were not user induced. Stearman offered the Ver 4 holders, which are quite different. Now using Fomopan, then new holder etc have not made any improvement. I suspect I will have to move on. But I did want to try and resolve why some of us are having these problems. With Fomopan, roll films I usually pre-soak to get rid the anti-halation backing. I then rinse the film clear, thae begin development usually D76 1:1 , Stop with water circa 1:00 min, and then fix for five, sometimes ten minutes.
Since I've read a bit on Stearman site, saying don't pre-soak. I tried that . Another time I've kept agitation constant during the fix cycle with and without pre-soak. I really wanted this to work.. Love the design and economic chemical use. I'd like to hear from others.. what film/developed combos have worked. Not all anti-halatrion backings are colored? But color or not, is this the problem? The PH of the water? I have not conciously made a distilled water test as my (gallon) developer is now mixed with tap water. as is the 1 liter fixer. Film isn't cheap and will eventually try this later with ony distilled weter. Not yet ready to waste another four frames, buy new film and different chemicals.

[GuillaumeZuili]

I have four of the Stearman 4x5 tanks and, like Michael, I've developed hundreds of negatives through all four tanks without any issues. In my opinion, it is a wonderful system.

Same here also.
I use 2 tanks together in order to do 8 sheets.
Dk50 or Rodinal with different film, always worked.
First time got issue with some dye. Then strong agitation in fix solved the problem.
Since then it has been many hundreds of sheets without any issue.
G.

[JohnF]

Just looked back at some 5x4 negs developed in a Stearman tank. Those developed in Ilford DD-X are perfect while those in 510 pyro all show some ‘streaking’ on the non-emulsion side adjacent to the verticals in the film holders

[tim48v]

Sorry for being late to the party, not sure how we missed this thread. Anyway, regarding the second image: almost certainly loaded backwards!

[tim48v]

Regarding anti-halation dye, we finally found the main issue: blotches of doom solved

[tim48v]

Chuckf,
We'd like to see some of you images. Can you email a scan to timothy@stearmanpress.com?
Tim

I've tried using this tank over the last there years as I slowly got involved with LF. I started with the Harmann Paper Positives, but had the shadows of the holder on the paper.. but as I had other problems like pre-flashing, film speed and duuhhh ..reversed images. in that "I could've had a V8 moment, I moved to film. The film I used was ADOX CHS II and while some were semi ok, almost all my negatives had traces of shadows in the light ( sky) areas. I wasted most of Adox honing my loading skills and taking care etc, that these were not user induced. Stearman offered the Ver 4 holders, which are quite different. Now using Fomopan, then new holder etc have not made any improvement. I suspect I will have to move on. But I did want to try and resolve why some of us are having these problems. With Fomopan, roll films I usually pre-soak to get rid the anti-halation backing. I then rinse the film clear, thae begin development usually D76 1:1 , Stop with water circa 1:00 min, and then fix for five, sometimes ten minutes.
Since I've read a bit on Stearman site, saying don't pre-soak. I tried that . Another time I've kept agitation constant during the fix cycle with and without pre-soak. I really wanted this to work.. Love the design and economic chemical use. I'd like to hear from others.. what film/developed combos have worked. Not all anti-halatrion backings are colored? But color or not, is this the problem? The PH of the water? I have not conciously made a distilled water test as my (gallon) developer is now mixed with tap water. as is the 1 liter fixer. Film isn't cheap and will eventually try this later with ony distilled weter. Not yet ready to waste another four frames, buy new film and different chemicals.

[newtorf]

It's relatively easy to reproduce the strip issue with Kodak B&W films like TMAX, if shooting a scene with large plain background like sky. The non-emulsion side can have a trace of purple strips after fixing and washing in the tank, due to the close contact between the film and the bracket. That's why nowadays I take the films out of the tank after fixing and wash them in a bucket. This solves the problem, although it would be nice that the bracket can be re-designed to avoid this problem.

Chuckf,
We'd like to see some of you images. Can you email a scan to timothy@stearmanpress.com?
Tim

[andrewglennmiller]

Happy to follow up on original post that the error in the film was a most likely the result of putting the film in backwards. Today I decided to shoot with this film again and the results turned out perfectly with the same steps as previous. Seeing how the two films sit real snug in the dual sleeves, it only makes sense too.