4x5 vs 5x7

[djdister]

Interesting. But how do you develop it? Trays? or does Stearman make a 5x7 system? Other solutions?

Process 5x7 sheets in 8x10 trays. I can shuffle process 4 - 5 sheets at a time.

[Joseph Kashi]

Interesting. But how do you develop it? Trays? or does Stearman make a 5x7 system? Other solutions?

Look for one of the BW King inversion 5x7 tanks on the web. These are basically like a jumbo 120 reel and stainless steel tank, holding 6 sheets per reel/tank for each development cycle. They work well and in the traditional 35mm/120 stainless steel tank fashion. These were available new until very recently. They work very well and are light-tight, so you develop in room light once loaded, just like a 120 SS tank.

[John Kasaian]

Interesting. But how do you develop it? Trays? or does Stearman make a 5x7 system? Other solutions?

I've used 8x10 trays, Unicolor print tubes, and a stainless steel tank made for developing 120 film that accommodates multiple reels.

[Nitesail]

I use a Stearman. It’ll do two 5x7’s at once.

[John Layton]

I currently use two methods for 5x7 - one is to simply batch process six per run in trays (shuffle method), the other is to have six 5x7 trays, each with 10 oz developer, in two rows of three placed into a 20x24 tray for the developing step only...meaning that the films will go into the presoak as a batch, then get placed individually in those small trays for processing (rocking the 20x24 tray to agitate), then transferred to a single (8x10) tray once again for three water washes then into the fix...and finally six trays of clean water for batch washing at four minutes per wash tray...then photo-flo then hang to dry in a drying cabinet.

The technique of employing those small trays for the developer step allows more precise control of agitation, and emulates "single negative in a tray" processing - which Gordon Hutchings inspired, both in his "Book of Pyro," and in direct conversation with him many years ago. The irony here of course is that this "multi-single-tray" setup, while great for Pyrocat, is actually somewhat risky for PMK Pyro, as the time it takes me to distribute each negative (face up) into the single developing trays delays the start of the initial agitation cycle by about thirty seconds (but I'm getting faster!). PMK likes to start this (very important) initial agitation cycle as soon as possible - while Pyrocat allows for a bit more leniency here.

Of course what is needed here is an automatic tray rocker - a device which actually exists (and which I've seen up close in action) and is really quite elegant.

[Mark J]

This is what I use for 2 sheets of 5x7" . Based on a thread on FADU forum. These are plastic bolts epoxied into an 8x10 tray. I haven't felt the need yet to go to a bigger tray for 4 sheets, since I'm only so far shooting 2 to 4 sheets in a session. Probably will do in the future.
It's very convenient, and suitable for Pyro developers because you can operate it with kitchen gloves. I haven't seen flow marks from the pegs - probably because the film can move around a little bit on each side.

[ic-racer]

It all depends on your intended print size. I make pretty big magnification enlargements of my Minox negatives and they come out to be about 4" x 5" in dimension and still have good quality.

So, in my hands, I can use just about any camera to make a good 4x5" print; carrying around a view camera to do that seems a little crazy to me.

In terms of making bigger prints, this is how I'd generalize it for many USA homes:

4x5" enlarger can sit on a bench
5x7" enlarger can stand on the floor
8x10" vertical enlarger won't fit many homes without either modifications to the enlarger or the ceiling or a compromise in maximum image size.

I have very high ceiling in my darkroom, but the 3" I lose in maximum enlarger height is about the difference between a 30" print and a 40" print with a 300mm lens. Of course there are ways around this.

I'd call 5x7" the ideal in between format. I know people that have converted 5x7 enlargers to 8x10, but I usually ask 'why?' 5x7 stands up very well on its own when enlarged. The film holders, camera and lenses are all smaller and easier to carry in the field. 210mm enlarging lenses can be hard to find, but 210mm taking lenses are a dime a dozen.

[Daniel Unkefer]

This is what I use for 2 sheets of 5x7" . Based on a thread on FADU forum. These are plastic bolts epoxied into an 8x10 tray. I haven't felt the need yet to go to a bigger tray for 4 sheets, since I'm only so far shooting 2 to 4 sheets in a session. Probably will do in the future.
It's very convenient, and suitable for Pyro developers because you can operate it with kitchen gloves. I haven't seen flow marks from the pegs - probably because the film can move around a little bit on each side.

That's clever! I think I will make myself one of those I use Unicolor 8x10 Print Drums, which I would NOT recommend with PMK+. Does work good with D23. I think 5x7 and 13x18 contact prints can be jewel-like. 13x18 looks good with black border on 8x10 paper.

[Mark J]

Credit goes to Alan Clark in the UK. I have not tried the idea of the wooden cover for 'lights on' use, that's also clever.
http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.or...ead.php?t=1883

[MAubrey]

Interesting. But how do you develop it? Trays? or does Stearman make a 5x7 system? Other solutions?

My 5x7 camera is DIY adapted from 4x5 Bender kit camera. It's great.