• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

8x10 film processing for smooth skies

I do this as well -never had any problems.
 
Jeremy said:
Why spend the time in the dark shuffling when you could be doing something in the light while the Jobo does the agitation for you? It takes all kinds, each to their own.
Click to expand...

Because if you are shooting Ultra Large Format the JOBO option is one sheet at a time. I have the unit with the polycarbonate inserts for the drums and it is a PITA. That is precisely why I dropped it. Nothing beats the ability to perfectly process up to six sheets of this large film in one shot. May as well have a plan B for when the JOBO unit craps out and parts either replacement or salvage become impossible to find. Rolling a drum by hand is not a very attractive alternative.
 

I'm always interested in different techniques to try. Do you have a link to or an example of your tray process or can you outline the key steps. I use an expert drum for 4x5 and am close to shelling out the $$ for the 8x10 drum.
 
IC -read Ansel Adams "The Negative" as it covers tray processing.

I was never able to get past scratching a lot of negatives with tray processing, something that I never do with the Jobo. I've got a 3010 drum and a CPA-2 and I hope I never have to go back to trays. If I did more 8x10 (i.e more than a couple sheets a year), I'd get a drum for it.
 
Michael Kadillak said:
Because if you are shooting Ultra Large Format the JOBO option is one sheet at a time.
Click to expand...

Yes, I shufffle the 11x14 negatives in a tray, but the thread is about 8x10 and the Jobo tank can develop 5 sheets at one time. That is enough film at one time compared to the 6 sheets I usually develop in a tray for me to use the Jobo so I can work on other things while the machine does the work. For the ULF stuff, though, I'm with you; 6 vs. 1 gets the job done a WHOLE lot sooner!
 
Jeremy said:
Here's how Michael and Paula do it: http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/devinsp.html
Click to expand...

When you see Michael and Paula develop scratch negatives in trays in large volume multiples you know that it can in fact be done.

The one thing that must be articulated with the JOBO is that in a drum ALL of the negatives in each drum get precisely the identical temp and development time whether it is exactly warranted or not. I do not have poly contrast filters to fall back upon in my photographic work with Azo/Lodima - only a water bath. that said I can pull N- n and N+ in the same tray processing run with my Night Vision monocle and IMHO it is very efficient utilization of the time I spend in the darkroom.

I agree that it is in individual decision but I only have one question.

If you realized that tray development could produce perfect results, would you employ this technique?

Onward!
 
I stumbled on this thread. Timely, I see.
11 x 14 trays for developing 8x10-inch negatives. 6 at a time. Can go up to 12 at a time if no skies are included.
Flat bottom
3 minutes pre-soak water bath with constant agitation
Emulsion up
Stack order ? Count? Nitrile gloves with ABC Pyro
Constant shuffle.

Michael A. Smith
 

Thank you! I'm going to try it with my next batch of film. Hope to do one of your workshops some day.
I spent an afternoon with a small collection of your books one day and it was quite an experience.
 
And thank you, ic-racer.

We are conducting a workshop at our studio October 2-4. There are still a few places remaining.

What are stack order and count?

Michael A. Smith
 
This has been a good read.
I've been having a little trouble with developing my sheets of 4x5 in trays. Even with as little as 3 sheets at a time I've been getting uneven skies. I enjoy the tray process and can't really afford any outlay for daylight tanks at the moment so have been hunting ways to improve my technique. I've got one sheet to do tonight so I'll start with that and see if I can get something nice and smooth.
 
I just finished one of M&P's workshops at their home- simply outstanding, and I can't recommend it enough! A very small but perhaps key observation that Paula made during the Dev by insp. demo was to always move the film from bottom to top, pulling exactly straight out, not on an angle. This can dramatically reduce scratches.

Tim
 
The jobo 8x10 tank works well... and you pay for the convenience in $$$.

Flat bottom tray and a Hake brush work very well for one sheet at a time. You immerse the neg in the chemistry and brush the surface from side to side, top to bottom... alteranting over and over again during the development.

Very even development, no scratches(unless you bear down like a crazy gorilla) and inexpensive.
 
I have always developed film in a tray. To quote myself, "If it was good enough for Edward Weston, it is good enough for me." And lack of funds dictated that tray developing was the only way to go.

The most even skies are obtained, as someone wrote earlier, by developing film by the brush technique. It is what astronomers do, who must get perfectly even skies. To do this, get a piece of glass or plexiglas and glue to the short end a piece of plastic with a slit in it that will hold the negative in position. Then brush the developer over the film while keeping the film immersed in the developer.

Developing one sheet at a time, standard way in a tray: When I began making 18x22 negatives, for the first time I developed one sheet of film at a time. This was because the film cost $45/sheet and I did not want to risk any scratching. Results: the worst, most splotchy negatives I have ever developed. When I developed the negatives 4 or 6 at a time, the results were perfect. Maybe some can develop one sheet at a time and get good results. Based on my experience, I recommend against it.

Michael A. Smith
 

In terms of agitation do you take the lowest sheet move it up to the top of the stack, agitate the tray, and repeat?

Tom.
 
Michael A. Smith said:
And thank you, ic-racer.

We are conducting a workshop at our studio October 2-4. There are still a few places remaining.

What are stack order and count?

Michael A. Smith
Click to expand...

Just how many sheets at a time (you indicated six) and if you shuffle by putting the bottom one on top or the top one on the bottom of the stack of six.
 
About even developing of sheet film in a tray.
Let us assume that Michael, and Kirk who first suggested it, are right about the brush technique; to quote Michael: “The most even skies are obtained, as someone wrote earlier, by developing film by the brush technique. It is what astronomers do, who must get perfectly even skies”. Now, when you Michael developed “one sheet at a time, standard way in a tray […] Results: the worst, most splotchy negatives I have ever developed. When I developed the negatives 4 or 6 at a time, the results were perfect.”

Assuming there is no magic involved in film developing (or voodoo, as was suggested in another thread!). It must be of some interest to have a reasonable explanation why the brush technique and the technique of shuffle around with 4,6 up to 8 or 12 sheets works, but problems with just one sheet “standard way in a tray”. It can’t be just a question of number, since the brush technique works with just one sheet at a time, as well as other way of processing one sheet at a time.

Given the fact that developing is reduction of the silver salts by the developing agents entering the emulsion, and the fact that rest products from the reduction tend to counteract development activity, my suggestion for an explanation is this:

With the brush method the washing out of rest products from the reduction process and the supply of new developing agents is very effective and immediately achieved over the whole surface - even exposed areas will thus develop in an even way. This “washing out of rest products” and “new supply of developing agents” is effectively achieved by the help of the brush’s interaction with the surface of the film. This is not effectively achieved by just moving a sheet of film in the developer, due to physics concerning liquids interaction at a surface such as the film emulsion (hope some physicists can explain this better, but some has explained it to me!). Now, I suppose, when you continuously shuffle around with lots of sheets there are much more movements of various kinds by the developer over the film surface and the “washing out/new supply” interaction is more effectively achieved compared to just moving around one sheet. Your agitation is more effective and closer to the brush.

At least one virtue of this explanation is that with this in mind it’s not hard to devise a method of agitation during the development process that gives even results, albeit just one sheet at a time. I have described my method in an earlier post in this thread, but there are others.

Obviously there are other very nice features with “developing several sheets at a time” and particularly doing this under inspection, thus achieving individual development of each sheet, as Michael fully describes on his site -- Very Interesting to hear about and learn how to do!
(sorry for such a long post!)
//Bertil
 
I tray process b/w 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10, and use a Jobo 3010 on a hand roller for 4x5 color, while taking 8x10 color to a lab (have not shot 5x7 color yet...but that would go to a lab like the 8x10). I like to use trays for b/w because I usually tweak development more shot to shot, and I feel that the trays give me finer control, and also allow me to vary agitation however I want, while the Jobo is constant. I have discovered that one key thing is to use a tray one size larger than your film if you will be agitating by rocking the tray. For 8x10, I use an 11x14 tray, even though it takes twice as much chemistry. Chemistry is cheap, but you can't repair an unevenly developed piece of film. You can lift your film out of the tray to agitate as well.
 
2F/2F said:
You can lift your film out of the tray to agitate as well.
Click to expand...
I thought this is where I was going wrong.
With my stack, every minute I lift one end of the stack out of the tray and slide top sheet to bottom for the whole stack + 1. I assumed having the negatives out of the water for possibly too long is what was giving me my uneven development, but now I'm back to square 1.
 
I am back after months to rehash this thread. At this point I actually think that it is impossible for me to achieve a perfectly smooth sky. I have literally tried it all. Tray, Jobo, xtol and Jobo, more hc110 per each sheet, etc............. it is seriously impossible for me. I have wasted film on this quest and have even had to modify my subject matter to not include smooth skies while using the 8x10. This has been total frustration. rant over.
 
Did you ever post a link to a print to show the unevenness? Are you sure it's not a camera issue or an enlarging issue?

The sky is not always all that even as well...
 
I took a lot of photographs in the seconds half of the last year. Because of the uneveness I was getting in the smooth sky areas I resorted to either only photographing when clouds were present or eliminating skies from my photographs all together. A number of those photographs are totally boring and nothing I am interested in printing any further. There were a few gems when the sky was cloudy though. This has lead me back to this thread once again. When I used the 3010 4x5 jobo on a beseler motor base that DIDN'T reverse I never had any issues with smooth skies at all. The 3005 8x10 on the same non-reversing motor base has been a totally different story. Not only have I been experiencing blotchy smooth skies but also what one would call bromide drag in areas where a tree and sky meet. Everything is level with the drum, capacities are good, so could these inconsistencies be a direct result of the drum only rotating in one direction? Thanks guys.
 
I am a big sky guy and haven't been entirely satisfied with the tonal smoothness in my tray-developed 8x10 and 11x14 negs... even though I agitate quite a lot and as randomly as possible (I have no such issues with smaller formats). For this reason, I am currently researching monobaths, specifically MM-1. I will do some trials in the coming weeks, but based on the Haist book, I suspect that MM-1 may fix what ails me... and make my processing time a lot shorter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register