PDA

View Full Version : Methods for Developing 4x5 Film


Neil Smith
23rd May 2009, 11:54 AM
Its been a number of years since I developed 4x5. In college we used an automatic Colenta processor and occasionally used trays in total darkness.

As I intend processing 4x5 again, I wanted some insight into other peoples methods, and preferences. I have seen various tanks such as CombiPlan and Jobo, and some people have mentioned Patersons Orbital for developing. There are pros and cons with all these, some cons that worry me are the uneven development some people have said they get with the tanks such as the CombiPlan (not a particularly cheap option especially if they are temperamental) and another being large quantities of chemicals used with some.

I am leaning towards using dish development, but this is not set in stone (especially as it is not the most convenient) As I intend to try Presysol EF with the single bath, partial stand agitation method, I can't see a Jobo being of use for this. Though I am interested in other developers and methods that give high quality negs for printing.

I had a look at the flickr link showing the taco method, interesting but that looks like a rather severe bend in the sheet film?

Would be good to here peoples own methods and results.

Neil

Barry
23rd May 2009, 12:09 PM
I use the Combi-plan and these (http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=2&tabid=9&CategoryID=78&langID=0) which you put into a paper dev tray. The postage and duties may be a little off-putting with the latter?

B&W Neil
23rd May 2009, 02:09 PM
I was lucky to pick up a couple of 5x4 Kodak deep tanks complete with film hangers a few years agp and use that, but you do use a lot of chemicals if you only have a few sheets to do. I also have one of the orbital tanks that a lot of our members like and use and when there is time I shall give that a go. The problem with the Kodak deep tanks is you have to work in the dark but it is surprising how you soon get used to this.

Ne

Dave miller
23rd May 2009, 02:15 PM
We have some words on the Paterson Orbital HERE (http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=119)
I have changed my working method using this unit with Prescysol to allow use of the semi-stand method. I use 350ml of fluid and only put the unit on the motor base for the agitation periods, the rest of the time it sits stationary on a level surface. The increase in fluid is required to ensure that the negatives are covered during the stationary period. I use the motorbase for the stop, and fix actions.
Victor recently described a way of doubling the capacity of the Combi-tank which could be of interest and is worth searching for.

agenoria2
24th May 2009, 10:59 AM
The Combi tanks and Yankee tanks are OK but messy, the Jobo tanks are far superior and are just like using a Paterson or similar spiral tank for 35mm/120

The early large 2000 series tanks take two sets of reels, each holding 6 sheets, they are designedfor inversion agitation and there far less of an issue with uneven development which can occur in the Combi/Yankee tanks.

Later Durst tanks are designed for rotary processing although you can still use inversion if you wish.

Mac

Sandeha Lynch
24th May 2009, 12:09 PM
If dev'ing one sheet at a time I use homemade tubes from this design ...

http://medfmt.8k.com/brontube.html Takes 150ml of liquid per sheet.

For four sheets of 4x5 (or two 5x7, one whole plate) I've adapted an 8x10 Ilford print drum on a motor-roller. This uses 250ml for the four sheets, but that's 200ml of chemistry plus an extra 25% plain water, and minus 15% time to compensate for the continuous agitation.

The tank has two U strips epoxied down the insides, and if dev'ing four sheets a dividing spacer that sits half way down.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/large_format/th_IMGP6045.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/large_format/IMGP6045.jpg) http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/link/th_spacer.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/link/spacer.jpg)

The U strips were cut from the edges of electrical ducting. (B&Q) :)

Ian David
25th May 2009, 02:15 AM
Hi Sandeha
I have always used a Combi-Plan tank for 5x4.
I like the look of the homemade tubes at the link you cited - the rubber barriers are a nice touch. Apart from using a smaller volume of chemicals, is there any reason to roll such tubes rather than fill them and agitate as with normal small tank developing?

Barry - I also like the look of those Formulary trays! More DIY projects for me!

Ian

Sandeha Lynch
25th May 2009, 08:36 AM
Hi Ian. Probably nothing to stop you rolling the tubes, though inversion should always give you more control over the agitation.

Barry
25th May 2009, 09:02 AM
...

Barry - I also like the look of those Formulary trays! More DIY projects for me!

Ian

If you discover a good way of drilling and cutting acrylic sheet please let us know.

Thanks

Neil Smith
25th May 2009, 11:15 AM
Thanks for all the input, I am tempted by the combi tank, most people have positive things to say, though a lot of people mention leaks, but I am considering using as a dip tank, if I get one I can experiment.

The tray inserts are interesting but as you said Barry expensive to get with the postage and vat on import, (especially when good old PO charge £8 handling fee on top) thanks for the link never seen them before. I can also see the tubes working well, similar to paterson tank, if I could use a tank in the same way as the Paterson it would be good as I have plenty of experience developing 35 and 120 this way, and have a tried and trusted method, but I am not sure how this would work with Large Format as I have never tried.

I might try a few different methods and see what works best for me.

Neil

Bob
26th May 2009, 12:02 PM
Also, investigate the Taco method pointed out by Bruce (darkclassical) here: http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=11476&postcount=28.

I use the Jobo 25xx series tanks and reels which are pretty problem-free once you have got the hang of loading them.

Barry
28th May 2009, 02:47 PM
Thanks for all the input, I am tempted by the combi tank, most people have positive things to say, though a lot of people mention leaks, but I am considering using as a dip tank, if I get one I can experiment.

The tray inserts are interesting but as you said Barry expensive to get with the postage and vat on import, (especially when good old PO charge £8 handling fee on top) thanks for the link never seen them before. I can also see the tubes working well, similar to paterson tank, if I could use a tank in the same way as the Paterson it would be good as I have plenty of experience developing 35 and 120 this way, and have a tried and trusted method, but I am not sure how this would work with Large Format as I have never tried.

I might try a few different methods and see what works best for me.

Neil

Neil, Also look at Martin Aislabie's post here (http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=280&highlight=Lakeland) if you decide with Combi tanks.

Neil Smith
28th May 2009, 05:42 PM
Thanks for that Barry, I had a read of the post a few days ago, some good advice. I also found some more info on another LF site which gave lots of ideas to try out.

I bought myself a Combi tank it arrived today, they seem like a good method and I am used to tank development, I will try a few different ways to use it and see what best suits me, but I liked the idea in Martin Aislabie's post about putting the reel in in the dark, and then putting the lid on, I was worried about the long fill time of the tank, which several people have mentioned in different posts.

I also came across a post which mentioned home made tray inserts out of perspex, but no illustrations.

Can anyone tell me what the orange plastic inserts that fit at the top of the Combi Reels are for? I bought the tank but it has no instructions with it, I think I have worked out how they fit correctly (I hope) but wonder what there purpose is.

Neil

Barry
28th May 2009, 07:55 PM
The Combi comes with orange guides to assist in loading film. I don't use them as they are easy to load with a little practice. They are not meant to be left in the tank.

Neil Smith
28th May 2009, 09:47 PM
Thanks Barry that makes sense now, I was thinking they will just fall off when you try to put the reel in the tank, I thought they might be something to aid agitation.

Neil

TonyMiller
20th December 2010, 12:27 PM
I'm interested in converting a recently acquired print drum using this method to take 5x7 negs. Is there any particular type of epoxy resin that I should use or is it all the same kind?


If dev'ing one sheet at a time I use homemade tubes from this design ...

http://medfmt.8k.com/brontube.html Takes 150ml of liquid per sheet.

For four sheets of 4x5 (or two 5x7, one whole plate) I've adapted an 8x10 Ilford print drum on a motor-roller. This uses 250ml for the four sheets, but that's 200ml of chemistry plus an extra 25% plain water, and minus 15% time to compensate for the continuous agitation.

The tank has two U strips epoxied down the insides, and if dev'ing four sheets a dividing spacer that sits half way down.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/large_format/th_IMGP6045.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/large_format/IMGP6045.jpg) http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/link/th_spacer.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/link/spacer.jpg)

The U strips were cut from the edges of electrical ducting. (B&Q) :)

Trevor Crone
20th December 2010, 12:47 PM
I'm interested in converting a recently acquired print drum using this method to take 5x7 negs. Is there any particular type of epoxy resin that I should use or is it all the same kind?

Tony, all I can say on this I used Araldite to do a modification to the pegs for my Paterson Orbital processor and it reacted with my PMK pyro developer giving increased density (fogging) where the negative came in contact with it. I don't know what the effect, if any would be with other developers. Just be cautious.

Dave miller
20th December 2010, 01:14 PM
Tony, all I can say on this I used Araldite to do a modification to the pegs for my Paterson Orbital processor and it reacted with my PMK pyro developer giving increased density (fogging) where the negative came in contact with it. I don't know what the effect, if any would be with other developers. Just be cautious.

:) I used slow curing epoxy for the same purpose and have not had any such problems. What about trying an "instant" glue designed for plastics?

Trevor Crone
20th December 2010, 01:42 PM
:) I used slow curing epoxy for the same purpose and have not had any such problems. What about trying an "instant" glue designed for plastics?

I suspect it was just a reaction with the pyro developer and this particular glue. I've since got around the problem by making my own pegs.

TonyMiller
20th December 2010, 02:06 PM
Thanks for the replies. Looking on the web about epoxy resins it appears some for the maritime industry may be suitable. I'm going to PM Sandeha Lynch also.
thanks again

Dave miller
20th December 2010, 02:23 PM
I suspect it was just a reaction with the pyro developer and this particular glue. I've since got around the problem by making my own pegs.


I was just amused at the vagaries of such advice where two people had diametrically opposing experience; it's calculated to confuse.

CreativeDave
20th December 2010, 02:51 PM
If you want something simple for conventional inversion tank use have a look at this.
Six sheets in a Paterson 3 spiral tank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt_Lzd3LUnQ
I have one, it is easy to load and uses 1000cc of dev for six sheets of film. Development is even and I have not had any problems yet.
I recon it would not do too well if it was dropped but apart from that; excellent.

Steve Smith
20th December 2010, 02:55 PM
giving increased density (fogging) where the negative came in contact with it.

Was the emulsion side coming into contact with it? If so it would not have had enough developer flow over it.

The modifications I have seen done are with blobs of glue on the base of a Paterson Orbital but in these cases it is the back of the film which will rest on them putting the emulsion on the top in full contact with the developer. Sometimes not all of the anti-halation layer is removed but a bit more washing cures this.


Steve.

Trevor Crone
20th December 2010, 03:12 PM
Was the emulsion side coming into contact with it? If so it would not have had enough developer flow over it.

The modifications I have seen done are with blobs of glue on the base of a Paterson Orbital but in these cases it is the back of the film which will rest on them putting the emulsion on the top in full contact with the developer. Sometimes not all of the anti-halation layer is removed but a bit more washing cures this.


Steve.

I was increasing the dome size of the pegs so the 5x7 negatives would not rise over them. There is just small circular areas of increased density at the edge of the negatives where they have come into contact with the peg and the glued dome, the density is so pronounced you cannot see through it, the rest of the negative area is fine.

I would have thought lack of developer flow/contact would give reduced negative density?

Dave miller
20th December 2010, 03:15 PM
I was increasing the dome size of the pegs so the 5x7 negatives would not rise over them. There is just small circular areas of increased density at the edge of the negatives where they have come into contact with the peg and the glued dome, the density is so pronounced you cannot see through it, the rest of the negative area is fine.

I would have thought lack of developer flow/contact would give reduced negative density?

Sounds more like Bromide drag caused by the turbulent developer flow around the pegs rather than the effect of the adhesive.

Trevor Crone
20th December 2010, 03:37 PM
Sounds more like Bromide drag caused by the turbulent developer flow around the pegs rather than the effect of the adhesive.

I've seen bromide drag before but nothing quite like this.

See attached neg scan - sorry neg is so dense but intended for pt/pd printing. You can just see the dense circular area 1/4 way up bottom right, there is also a smaller one top right but sky area is too dense to differentiate on this scan.

Apologies Tony for taking your thread off track.

TonyMiller
20th December 2010, 03:41 PM
Thanks Dave - I already have one and it is very good for 5x4. I want to go a bit larger and use 5x7. I have a 5x7 camera which I've adapted to take a 5x4 back which is great for enlarging (when I manage to afford a 5x4 enlarger!!) but for contact prints I like 5x7.

If you want something simple for conventional inversion tank use have a look at this.
Six sheets in a Paterson 3 spiral tank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt_Lzd3LUnQ
I have one, it is easy to load and uses 1000cc of dev for six sheets of film. Development is even and I have not had any problems yet.
I recon it would not do too well if it was dropped but apart from that; excellent.

TonyMiller
20th December 2010, 03:44 PM
That's cool...it raises another question. I'm looking for confirmation really but - the developer needs to go around the back of the film doesn't it? Hence the reason I thought Sandeha's solution was a good one as the film is raised from the drum itself.

I've seen bromide drag before but nothing quite like this.

See attached neg scan - sorry neg is so dense but intended for pt/pd printing. You can just see the dense circular area 1/4 way up bottom right, there is also a smaller one top right but sky area is too dense to differentiate on this scan.

Apologies Tony for taking your thread off track.

Trevor Crone
20th December 2010, 03:51 PM
That's cool...it raises another question. I'm looking for confirmation really but - the developer needs to go around the back of the film doesn't it? Hence the reason I thought Sandeha's solution was a good one as the film is raised from the drum itself.

Thanks Tony - yes, developer does need to go around the film which it does in my Orbital as I have 20 plastic self-adhesive domes on the base which is enough to raise the film about 3mm.

Steve Smith
20th December 2010, 04:18 PM
When I first used my Orbital I didn't know about the idea of scoring the base or putting dabs of glue on it so the film stuck to the base and still had the anti-halation layer on it when I finished which was a bit of a surprise. The emulsion still develops o.k like this but the film needs to be removed (or turned over) to wash it off.

I scored the base of mine with a knife to break up the surface tension and now it works fine.


Steve.

Tone
20th December 2010, 04:45 PM
I've used BTZS Tubes for 5x4 processing, great for one sheet at a time uses a small amount of chem's
Tony

Dave miller
20th December 2010, 04:50 PM
I agree Trevor that mark does not look like bromide drag, so it’s back to the glue reaction theory.


Tony, if you mean does the developer need to get to the back of the film (the non-emulsion side) the answer is no, but as Steve says both sides do need washing.

Trevor Crone
20th December 2010, 05:13 PM
I agree Trevor that mark does not look like bromide drag, so it’s back to the glue reaction theory.

Thinking about it further I'm wondering if I didn't allow the epoxy resin to cure properly, I was using the slow stuff.:confused:

Dave miller
20th December 2010, 05:14 PM
Thinking about it further I'm wondering if I didn't allow the epoxy resin to cure properly, I was using the slow stuff.:confused:

Could be, I left my trays in our heated airing cupboard for a couple of days to cure.