MOD54 film processing "report"

[chuck94022]

I wonder how many star rating this was out of? 5 out of a possible 10 perhaps?

It seems a fairly pointless rating if it is out of 5, given you state that it has the problems of a) being difficult to load, and b) uses over 3 times the volume of chemicals as "tubes".

If you are used to doing inversion development in the equivalent Jobo tank, this appears to deserve its 5stars. I tend to like my Patterson more than my Jobo, and always pined for a sheet film solution for the Patterson. I tend to like the swirly stick especially when doing C-41, so I can keep the tank in the warm bath. This looks like it will be great, I'll be buying one I think.

Chem use with this versus btzs type tubes is apples and oranges. Yeah they use less but you have to kill the lights to change chems. So it is a different sort of process. As others have said, the volume difference is no big deal most of the time.

Anyone have opinion on how it performs using the swirly stick for agitation?

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

What really impresses me is that when you go on the MOD54 site and watch the videos you will see a few different homemade solutions for using JOBO drums if you don't have one of their processors. NEAT STUFF!

[JBelthoff]

Did you not breast-feed as a child?

Excellent! Hahahahah

I also use a MOD54 however I am having a difficult time getting even development specially in the areas where the film is held with the holder. I usually don't notice unless I boost the local contrast but it is certainly there.

Doesn't stop me from using it. At least until I upgrade to an Expert Drum hopefully soon!

My two cents anyway....

--JB

[trog]

Excellent! Hahahahah

I also use a MOD54 however I am having a difficult time getting even development specially in the areas where the film is held with the holder. I usually don't notice unless I boost the local contrast but it is certainly there.

Doesn't stop me from using it. At least until I upgrade to an Expert Drum hopefully soon!

My two cents anyway....

--JB

The manufacturer suggests that uneven development could be the result of insufficient agitation.

[Kodachrome25]

I had two, sold them some time ago. Reason being was they were not as consistent as my Jobo / Expert Drum and mostly because sheet film with thin base material like Rollei IR400 would come loose and stick to each other no matter what I did.

I think they are a great option for hobby shooters or folks who dont use a wet darkroom to print, but since I do this for a living, a high degree of consistency and quality in my negs is a must for fine art darkroom based prints.

[JBelthoff]

The manufacturer suggests that uneven development could be the result of insufficient agitation.

That may be but it seems to happen in the exact areas where the film is held in by the little fingers. Specially in the sky areas of negatives.... I would imagine that more agitation would cause it to increase no?

[trog]

That may be but it seems to happen in the exact areas where the film is held in by the little fingers. Specially in the sky areas of negatives.... I would imagine that more agitation would cause it to increase no?

That's odd. Did you install the film with the emulsion side facing in?

[Kirk Gittings]

FWIW the reason I suggested above a more controlled test for agitation issues is that in the 34 years I have been developing film I have tried just about everything out there except this-hangers, Combi, tray, slosher, shuffle, BTZS tubes and Jobo. Based on that experience (and these were not casual trials-each one I wanted to work) I take one look at the Mod54 and I know that I personally could not get even agitation out of it. Only with shuffle, BTZS tubes and Jobo have I been able to get even agitation (though I have had problems with scratches with shuffle and BTZS). IME anything that contacts the edges of the film creates a current which results in uneven development.

[trog]

FWIW the reason I suggested above a more controlled test for agitation issues is that in the 34 years I have been developing film I have tried just about everything out there except this-hangers, Combi, tray, slosher, shuffle, BTZS tubes and Jobo. Based on that experience (and these were not casual trials-each one I wanted to work) I take one look at the Mod54 and I know that I personally could not get even agitation out of it. Only with shuffle, BTZS tubes and Jobo have I been able to get even agitation (though I have had problems with scratches with shuffle and BTZS). IME anything that contacts the edges of the film creates a current which results in uneven development.

Interesting!

BTW, I've also experienced uneven development with 'tubes' and at times, horrible scratching.

[JBelthoff]

That's odd. Did you install the film with the emulsion side facing in?

Yeah I am doing everything according to instructions. And I don't want to in anyway disuade anyone from getting this unit as I have had some photos look realy good come out of it. However every sky I have done has uneven development where the film is held into the holder and it is because of the developer flow over that area. It is quite visible.

All in all I have put approx 150 B&W negatives through this and for the most part it is a quick inexpensive mod for the patterson tank that works until you need those smooth gradiants from things like the sky and other similar situations. And then plan to photoshop the heck out of your image....

Currently I am saving up for a Jobo 3010 but the Jobo is 6-7 times the cost of the MOD54.

So if you want exacting results you will need more than the MOD54 and if you don't mind some post processing and want to save some coin then the MOD54 does work really well.

I hope this helps.

-- JB