developing 4x5 with the yankee daylight development tank

[codyjgraham]

Cody, don't be so critical of the negative posts. They are not negative, although they are sometimes harshly worded and appear negative. They are generally warnings, and mostly from people who have had bad experiences.

Also, expecting people to read your post and adhere strictly to the questions you asked is somewhat optimistic on your part. These threads often break down over that issue. A misunderstanding about exactly what a poster asks, and the offering of assistance, even in the form of a warning may be a bit off the target of your question. It happens... and it happens all the time.

Now I was NOT going to jump in on this question, but over the years, I have had three Yankee tanks and finally concluded that they are pretty much worthless, but they were inexpensive or given to me at the time. And free or cheap is good in my book. But I still could not get them to work properly and it cost me a lot in chemicals and paper.

I have to add that this is one of the least negative and "pissy" forums I have participated in, and I have visited many and left them for that reason.

Please hang in there. This thread is one of the cleanest I have seen, and the warning from one poster is misconstrued on your part. You were harsh back in your response.

Yankee tanks obviously work for some, but for me they were messy and too restrictive, like learning to bump the air bubbles and agitate with such accuracy.

Something slightly automated on the agitation will be far better than a yankee tank.

i apologize, it was more backlash from another post i made where 85% of the post were just mean posts about the photographer and not the quesiton

[Heroique]

Hi Cody, “85%-negative” qualifies as a polite thread around here – a tough playground!

Me, I’m a proud (former) user of the Yankee tank...

Many years ago, I migrated to open tray processing – and will never go back – but some of my best negatives came from that ol’ Yankee tank.

When I stopped using it, I sold the tank on CL for $15 – but kept the rack for Type-55 clearing in a small painter’s bucket. Then, when Type-55 went away, I sold the rack for $10 on CL. I almost got back from two sales what I spent on the purchase!

The upshot, as I see it: The Yankee tank works well within its limitations, if you’re careful and match it w/ suitable objectives. And it sounds like that’s what you’re trying to do. Most people who curse the tank haven’t used it right and project their anger on a neutral piece of plastic. It deserves better. ;^)

-----
Psst – use every other slot, not all of them at once!

[codyjgraham]

Hi Cody, “85%-negative” qualifies as a polite thread around here – a tough playground!

Me, I’m a proud (former) user of the Yankee tank...

Many years ago, I migrated to open tray processing – and will never go back – but some of my best negatives came from that ol’ Yankee tank.

When I stopped using it, I sold the tank on CL for $15 – but kept the rack for Type-55 clearing in a small painter’s bucket. Then, when Type-55 went away, I sold the rack for $10 on CL. I almost got back from two sales what I spent on the purchase!

The upshot, as I see it: The Yankee tank works well within its limitations, if you’re careful and match it w/ suitable objectives. And it sounds like that’s what you’re trying to do. Most people who curse the tank haven’t used it right and project their anger on a neutral piece of plastic. It deserves better. ;^)

-----
Psst – use every other slot, not all of them at once!

well i developed them and they came out awesome ill try to post them sometime, like tonight or tomorrow theyre drying right now

[Jody_S]

I find it works better using semi-stand developing, 100:1 or 200:1 developer, 20-30 minute times with perhaps 3 agitations. I agitate by lifting the film rack out of the tank, much like you would with stainless hangers. Obviously in darkness, but as soon as I replace the lid I can turn the light back on. I agitate fairly vigorously for the first few seconds, or else I do a pre-soak for 20 minutes.

[Kuzano]

i apologize, it was more backlash from another post i made where 85% of the post were just mean posts about the photographer and not the quesiton

You need not apologize, and in retrospect I regretted a couple of things I said to you. I was not applying for an apology.

I know exactly what you say about the high numbers of negative posts on some forums. In fact I have two right now that are so bad, I am closing my memberships out.

This forum is not generally like that, but it does happen occasionally.

Hope you have good experience with your photography and the forum in general.

Lars

[Leigh]

...or else I do a pre-soak for 20 minutes.

Wow. I've heard of stand development, but never stand soak.

Why would you soak for 20 minutes? The water would fully infiltrate the emulsion in a few seconds.

- Leigh

[Dan Henderson]

I am a devotee of Yankee tanks. I think they work great, at least for my style of developing, which is with low frequency agitation. I use whatever time/temp is called for, with no variations because of the tank. I agitate using a back and forth motion as directed on the tank lid, and as someone mentioned, sometimes you do get a bit of slopover, but I don't agitate as vigorously as the previous poster must. Just a gently back and forth of the tank is all that is required.

I also don't understand the negative comments about Yankee tanks. They are relatively inexpensive, load easily, and are straightforward to use. People sing praises of the Combi tank, yet I read about them being finicky to load and operate, and that some parts break easily. And when they were made they were a lot more expensive than Yankees. But I've never used one, so what do I know? To each his/her own.

[codyjgraham]

I am a devotee of Yankee tanks. I think they work great, at least for my style of developing, which is with low frequency agitation. I use whatever time/temp is called for, with no variations because of the tank. I agitate using a back and forth motion as directed on the tank lid, and as someone mentioned, sometimes you do get a bit of slopover, but I don't agitate as vigorously as the previous poster must. Just a gently back and forth of the tank is all that is required.

I also don't understand the negative comments about Yankee tanks. They are relatively inexpensive, load easily, and are straightforward to use. People sing praises of the Combi tank, yet I read about them being finicky to load and operate, and that some parts break easily. And when they were made they were a lot more expensive than Yankees. But I've never used one, so what do I know? To each his/her own.

so far my experience is good

[Brian C. Miller]

I started out developing sheet film in a Yankee tank. I never got even development from it. The problems are evident when there are large patches of blank sky, or similar blank space. I finally tested it by first photographing a plain wall.

I tried two methods: lifting the cage up and down, and agitating back and forth according to the arrows.
When I lifted the cage up and down, I got surge marks due to the shape of the slots.
When I agitated back and forth, I got different development between the top and the bottom.

I finally gave up on the Yankee tank, and went to Jobo processing. When I don't want to fill the Jobo (one or two sheets) I use a single-sheet slosher I made and a 5x7 tray.

Your mileage may vary, but do test it by developing something with lots of sky, or a big blank wall in it.

[Jody_S]

Some of the film I've been using has something blue on it that gets into my developer and seems to reduce it's life. If I pre-soak, or pre-wash with gentle running water, this blue crap gets washed away before I develop. I do re-use my developer (max 1 or 2 days) for multiple formats, so I've started doing this pre-soak on most. It's not tedious if I'm developing 35mm and 120, say, while I do the pre-soak on my 4x5s.