4x5 Sheet Film Dev in Manual Tanks

[markwny]

I'm just now returning back to photography after being away from it for more than 30 years. Back then I only worked with 35mm roll film, but now I'm going to try 4x5 sheet film. I've searched the forums and articles, but the vast majority of the information was related to roll film (obviously).

My question relates to capacity of developer when used in a single shot (non-replenished) process. I'm not going to mention specific films or developers because I know that would only generate their own set of responses. I want to keep this generic. Specifically, the manufacturer datasheets for each developer contain information related to capacity. Some even get into how much time extension is required as the developer is used on several rolls / sheets. It seems to me that there must be a "best practice" for obtaining the most consistent results without going overboard and throwing away perfectly good developer, thereby increasing the processing cost unnessarily.

Using a 1/2 gallon tank, 6 sheets in hangers at a time, how many "batches" can I use before throwing the developer away and refilling? Is it best to throw it away before you need to start compensating with longer development time?

If this information is covered elsewhere on APUG please let me know.

Thank you.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

One 35mmx36exp roll or one 120 roll is equivalent to 4 sheets of 4x5" film when computing capacity. I just keep a sticky note on the wall next to my developer tank and tick off the number of rolls or the equivalent in sheet film as I use it.

 

[olleorama]

One 35mmx36exp roll or one 120 roll is equivalent to 4 sheets of 4x5" film when computing capacity. I just keep a sticky note on the wall next to my developer tank and tick off the number of rolls or the equivalent in sheet film as I use it.

Does this 1x35mm:1x120:4x4x5 apply to all developers? Is this also valid for C41 and E6?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes, it's just a matter of square inches of film. Think about it--you can contact proof a 35mmx36exp roll or a 120 roll or 4 4x5 sheets or two 5x7 sheets or 1 8x10 sheet on an 8x10" sheet of paper. They're all about the same film area, which is the main issue for determining capacity of the developer. Two sheets of 5x7" is a little smaller, but it's close enough for this purpose.

There may be some differences with E-6 based on the type of film. For instance, with the Tetenal 3 bath kit, I've found that Fuji films tend to exhaust the chemistry more quickly than Kodak films. Also pushing can exhaust the chemistry more quickly.

All things being equal, though, developer capacity is usually expressed in terms of film area.

 

[fschifano]

Yeah. Same goes for an 8x10 sheet of film. Each is about 80 square inches of film. Developer capacities are usually given in how many square inches per unit volume. If not, you can do the calculations fairly easily.

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

Hi, Mark. I posed this question a couple weeks ago. How much to compensate for the difference in developer concentration between first six films and second? It was suggested to me 10%, but I have yet to apply this yet to see what that looks like.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There can be no general rule about how much to compensate for a given number of sheets of film, because different developers at different dilutions, and at different total quantities will have different capacities.

One could also use a replenishable developer that requires no compensation.

 

[markwny]

Now we are getting to the heart of my question. I already understood the relationship between the area of a roll of film and a 4x5 or 8x10 sheet of film. I also understand that unreplenished developer has a rated capacity in number of rolls of film per liter of developer. That rating though assumes time compensation. Obviously using the developer for its full capacity is most economical. However, would this be false economy if the quality of the late negatives are not a high as those in the first batch? For highest quality and consistency is it a better practice to lightly use the developer and dispose of it even though it still has some unused capacity?

 

[Anon Ymous]

If you want consistency and economy, try one of the concentrated developers like Rodinal and HC110. They're cheap and they have legendary shelf life.

 

[olleorama]

If you want consistency and economy, try one of the concentrated developers like Rodinal and HC110. They're cheap and they have legendary shelf life.

Or diafine, the ultimate in economical developers. Although you sacrifice the control over the process, e.g. hard to do N+1 etc.

 

[jgates]

What I have been doing nearly forever in rolls (and now sheet) re: economy is mixing my own in roughly the quantities I expect to use up. This is very inexpensive from the get go. You can make a number of developers from a few ingredients, and the only extra equipment and work required relates to measurement and making sure my cats don't get near anything.

For fix I use the flexicolor fix, and stop lasts quite a while indeed. I don't know how to make rodinal, but i fiind it very economical as is it. I don't quite like HC-110 so I don't use that any longer.

I use all my developers one shot, and I use a 2 bath fixing process which I simply test at the start of each session. I also do a quick rinse between every step after the stop.

For printing I only use LPD, and I'd mix that up too if I had a formula. But I quite like it. I may expend to mixing toners etc, but I'm less inclined to that really. I believe all of this is relatively normal behavior.

But basically I choose chemicals that have relatively inexpensive basic components, or longish life. I'd love to do c-41, e-6 and ra-4 at home, but I don't have the volume to use up bought chemicals, and I have no idea how to make them.

Regards

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Now we are getting to the heart of my question. I already understood the relationship between the area of a roll of film and a 4x5 or 8x10 sheet of film. I also understand that unreplenished developer has a rated capacity in number of rolls of film per liter of developer. That rating though assumes time compensation. Obviously using the developer for its full capacity is most economical. However, would this be false economy if the quality of the late negatives are not a high as those in the first batch? For highest quality and consistency is it a better practice to lightly use the developer and dispose of it even though it still has some unused capacity?

If the developer assumes compensation, then usually the instructions will tell you how much to compensate. For instance, I use Acufine as a tank developer. It can either be replenished without compensation or used unreplenished with a capacity of 32 rolls/quart, increasing development time by 2% after 16 rolls.

If you wanted to determine this yourself, you could make some standard control patches and test the developer periodically by developing for a set time and reading the film with a densitometer, and if the density for that development time drops, run another test for a longer time and check the density of the result again.

 

[markwny]

I'd like to thank all of you. This information is most helpful.