8x10 film processing for smooth skies

[Jordan.K]

Does anyone process 8x10 sheet film one at a time in a tray? If so do you just rock the tray with the emulsion side up? I need an almost fool proof way to achieve a flawless smooth sky. Thanks in advance.

 

[rcoda]

The best way, IMHO, is to use a Jobo and Expert Drums (3005). Never had luck in trays. Maybe hangers, but you will need a lot more chemistry.

 

[Bruce Watson]

The best way, IMHO, is to use a Jobo and Expert Drums (3005).

Second the Jobo expert drums on a Jobo or similar rotary processor. Continuous agitation is the path to perfectly smooth skies IMHO.

 

[Jordan.K]

My jobo 3005 is super difficult to get flawless smooth skies. I have tried everything....... leveling, developers, dilutions, etc................ I would pay to solve this issue.

hc110 at 1:90 from the syrup
5 minute presoak
8 minutes developing

blotches in sky........ mainly from the bottom of Jobo. Less development not much but enough to bug the crap out of me.

 

[Bruce Watson]

My jobo 3005 is super difficult to get flawless smooth skies. I have tried everything....... leveling, developers, dilutions, etc................ I would pay to solve this issue.

hc110 at 1:90 from the syrup
5 minute presoak
8 minutes developing

blotches in sky........ mainly from the bottom of Jobo. Less development not much but enough to bug the crap out of me.

Really? That's unusual. I have to ask some questions:

Are you using enough solution to cover the sheets completely? IIRC minimum in a 3005 is something like 270ml, but I'd go for half a liter minimum to be really sure of coverage.

What film are you using? And are you using enough HC-110 syrup for each sheet? IIRC Tri-X wanted something like 12ml of syrup per 8x10 sheet, but that's off the top of my head and you'd want to look that up and be sure about it, and of course other films will perhaps differ some.

Are you using enough HC-110 stock for each sheet of film?

Are you leveling the drum itself and not just the mechanism under it yes?

Are you reversing the drum rotation every couple of revolutions?

How fast is the drum turning?

What temperature?

I had trouble with rotary development with HC-110 in a 3010 tank. I found HC-110 too active for me -- even at dilution H I needed to get down to about four minutes at 20C. I had my Jobo down to about 30 rpm too. This was with 5x4 Tri-X though. When I finally gave in and switched to XTOL I started getting excellent results almost immediately.

 

[dpurdy]

I get smooth skies with tray processing but I would do it one sheet at a time. I process in a glass casserole dish that is just under 8 inches wide on the bottom so the film doesn't settle down on the bottom. The dish is wider at top and about 12 inches long. In the process if I am doing just one sheet I will turn the film over from time to time emulsion down and emulsion up and sometimes turn the sheet around 180 degrees so my agitation goes the opposite direction for half the process. Keep very clean hands and handle the film by only the very edge if you can.

 

[Bertil]

I process 8x10 (5x7, 4x5) sheet film one at a time, but not in an ordinary tray - don't like chemicals on the table or the floor!. Let me explain: I use boxes roughly the size of the sheet (for 8x10 bottom measures 32x23 cm, depth 17 cm.) The plastic boxes I use are of the type you buy in an ordinary household store for keeping various stuffs in your garage, cellar etc. (My ideal boxes would, at bottom, be very close to the size of the sheets!) I use no more developer than enough to cover the sheet, emulsion side up, agitating quite vigorously by turning 45° right-left-forward-backward; agitating the first minute, and keeping developing times around 10 minutes enough to agitate 15 seconds each second minute (but depending on exposure of highlights requiring evenness more agitation my be necessary). With this method (clean water with some drops of Photo-Flo) I have no problems, as far as I can see, with uneven development of sheet films (and no damage to the back of the sheet).
In a tray, in my experience, it can be more difficult to achieve good agitation, i.e. each time you agitate you manage to substitute as complete as possible new developing agent in the emulsion for the used bad chemicals. Just moving around the sheet in the tray, or rocking the tray without having the developer ending up on the floor (!), is not enough the achieve even developing in critical parts of the negative. In the box there are no hangers with some well known edge problems, and no problems achieving a lot of movements of the developer over the film surface in a non-patterned way. (For a couple of 4x5 sheets I use 1,5 dl developer, for 5x7 4-5 dl and for 8x10 some 8-10 dl (depends on the size of the box), so I don't need huge volumes of chemicals.)
At least this is my method and it works nicely, as far as I can judge.
Good luck!
/Bertil

 

[Jordan.K]

Bruce,
I usually process 3 at a time on beseler motor base rotating in one direction. I use 800ml of chemistry per batch. I dilute my HC110 directly from the syrup at 1:90oz. The film I use is Tri-X. I am leveling the actual drum and I actually do my leveling during the presoak to get a more accurate leveling while it has liquid in it. My 3005 makes 30rpm and I get beautiful negatives at around 7-8minutes. I have used these methods for my 3010 with perfect results. I rate my film at 125 and 160 depending. Bruce if you can offer me some dilutions with xtol that will yield the same smooth contrast as HC110 I am more than willing to try. My issue is that I've used xtol and feel that it doesn't give as smooth a contrast.

Really? That's unusual. I have to ask some questions:

Are you using enough solution to cover the sheets completely? IIRC minimum in a 3005 is something like 270ml, but I'd go for half a liter minimum to be really sure of coverage.

What film are you using? And are you using enough HC-110 syrup for each sheet? IIRC Tri-X wanted something like 12ml of syrup per 8x10 sheet, but that's off the top of my head and you'd want to look that up and be sure about it, and of course other films will perhaps differ some.

Are you using enough HC-110 stock for each sheet of film?

Are you leveling the drum itself and not just the mechanism under it yes?

Are you reversing the drum rotation every couple of revolutions?

How fast is the drum turning?

What temperature?

I had trouble with rotary development with HC-110 in a 3010 tank. I found HC-110 too active for me -- even at dilution H I needed to get down to about four minutes at 20C. I had my Jobo down to about 30 rpm too. This was with 5x4 Tri-X though. When I finally gave in and switched to XTOL I started getting excellent results almost immediately.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Bruce,
I usually process 3 at a time on beseler motor base rotating in one direction.

First thing I'd try is reversing. If the Beseler motor base can do that automatically every couple of revolutions, great. Else you could pick the tank up and turn it around every once in awhile. Say, every 30 seconds?

Next thing, are you pouring in the chemicals using a flexible funnel while the tank is turning? If not, you might want to try that. I've read that pouring in the chems with the tank upright, then tipping the tank over and starting rotation can cause uneven development. The first minute seems to be the most crucial in development. The presoak should help with that some, but I've read that sometimes it's not enough.

I'd try both of these before switching from a developer you like. But for what it's worth, I compared HC-110H (that's 1+63, so not as dilute as you are currently using) with XTOL 1+3. I thought the grain was a bit nicer with the XTOL, and the micro contrast was a bit better with the HC-110. When I say "a bit" I'm talking like 2%, as in very small. I personally wouldn't give much for the difference between the two with Tri-X and enlargements below 10x, but the XTOL gave me full box speed, where the HC-110 cost me about 2/3 stop down from box speed. That mattered to me, but may not to you.

 

[Softie]

I'm surprised at the repeated recommendations for using a tray that is very close to the paper size---such trays always resulted in overdeveloped edges for me. Now I use BTZS tubes, and have fewer issues with the continuous agitation.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Bruce,
I usually process 3 at a time on beseler motor base rotating in one direction. I use 800ml of chemistry per batch. I dilute my HC110 directly from the syrup at 1:90oz. The film I use is Tri-X.

I'm looking at the Kodak Tech Pub J24. What I'm seeing them say is that you need 12 ml of HC-110 syrup for each 8x10 sheet.

Now, 800ml, with a 1+90 dilution gives units of 800 ml/91 = 8.79ml. So you aren't using enough syrup for a single sheet of 8x10 film. Since the problems are occurring in the skies, and the skies are typically the most dense and therefore need the most developer, I think your problem is perhaps developer exhaustion.

Consider trying another dilution, some multiple of 12ml so you have enough to "finish" a single sheet. Dilution H comes to mind, 1+63. Using 12 ml of syrup will give you 768 ml of total solution. This will bring your time down some, probably down around 6.5 minutes more or less.

Try that without changing anything else you are doing. That is, change exactly one thing at a time, so that if you get good results from a processing run, you'll know what change made the improvement.

 

[Maris]

Here's a technique I posted elsewhere some time ago. It's still my standard method.

I use a Rubbermaid washing up tray for sheet film development. It's a fraction over 8x10 size, sculpted bottom, rounded corners, and six inches (no splash, no spill) deep.

Agitation is a slippery variable so I decided on continuous agitation for all films. It also gives me something to do because some of those dark minutes and hours can seem to drag. The agitation sequence goes like this:

Slide the film quickly into the developer face up.

Lift the front edge of the tray until a wave of developer travels to the back. Lower the front edge and wait for the wave to return to the front. You can feel the wave because the tray sends the changing force to your finger tips.

Now do the same with the right edge of the tray, then the back edge, then the left edge, then return to the front. Keep going until the development time is up. If you are really fussy turn the tray through 180 degrees half way through development.

This system gives me perfect, even, scratch-free results for all films. The down-side is a one-sheet-at a-time system means time, tedium, and labour. But I don't care. Large format photography is playing for high stakes and I'm not going to carry a 4x5 or 8x10 all day and then botch film development because I was in a hurry.

Chasing smooth even skies is not always possible because the sky itself can carry surprising tonal modulations. They are hard to see because the sky is so bright but film will surely find them.

 

[Bertil]

Softie, overdeveloped edges in a tray is, as far as I understand, due to insufficient agitation at the very period when you perform the agitation. This is hard to achieve in an ordinary tray, perhaps with a lot of developer. In the box/tray I suggested, with no more developer than what's needed to properly cover the sheet when it's standing still, when you lift the box 45° (or more!) the developer more or less leaves the sheet and then penetrates the whole surface when you lift the opposite side in the same way (and the same when lifting the front and then the back the same way). The point with this method is that each time you agitate the substitution of good for bad chemicals in the emulsion is as Complete as possible. If that substitution is achieved the developing can go on for quite a while (1/4-1/5 of the whole developing time) without any unevenness, and continuous agitation should not normally (!) be necessary. With a developer/dilution/temperature giving developing times 8 minutes or more, this substitution with this agitation method seems to be achieved, according to my experience, after roughly 15-20 seconds for a normally exposed negative. If the box/tray is roughly the size of the sheet it will not swim around and I think that makes the substitution of the chemicals more complete and limits the possibility of damage to the sheet.
No surprise that proper continuous agitation will give even development. But compensating and edge contrast effects achieved with agitation in intervals is lost. Perhaps not necessary, but not impossible to achieve, as far as I can see.
//Bertil

 

[Bertil]

Maris, your Rubbermaid washing up tray "...a fraction over 8x10 size, sculpted bottom, rounded corners, and six inches (no splash, no spill) deep" is very close to my plastic boxes for 8x10! Wouldn't mind a box more close to yours!
/Bertil

 

[Kirk Keyes]

My understanding is that agitation with a brush gives very even development and was traditionally used for astronomical plate development.

How wide of lens are you using? As mentioned, the sky can vary brightness considerably and the wider the lens, the more this will be an issue.

 

[Jordan.K]

Bruce,
your observation on how much actual chemical is needed for each sheet of 8x10 film was really interesting to me. What if I added a 1/2 oz. more hc110? I feel I need to keep my times around 7-8 minutes. Do you have any equation or idea as to how I may be able to achieve this with hc110? Thanks all of you for your ideas. Bertil and Maris that container you speak of seems genius.

 

[Don Wallace]

Ah, the whacky world of HC-110 mathematics. I use HC-110 in a CPE-2 for 4x5 and an Expert Drum for 8x10. Here is some of my math.

The Kodak technical publication Bruce mentions says that one litre of HC-110 dilution F (1:79) will develop one sheet of 8x10. 1:79 means 80 parts in total, so if we divide 1 litre or 1000 ml by 80, we get 12.5. So, you need at least 12.5 ml of HC-110 to develop one sheet of 8x10, according to Kodak.

If you want to develop at 1:90, then you will need 12.5 ml syrup + (12.5 x 89)ml water, which is 1112.5 ml of developer. If you diluting 1:90, then you are using 91 oz in total. One oz of syrup = 29.6 ml which would be just under 10 ml per sheet - not enough according to Kodak, but pretty damn close.

If you insist on working in ounces (which always gives me a headache), the you would need 0.42 oz of developer per sheet. At 1:90, this would mean

0.42 oz syrup + (0.42 x 90) water or
0.42 oz syrup + 37.8 oz water or
38.22 oz developer for one sheet.

Someone check all these figures. I flunked math quite consistently.

I am not sure that just under 10 ml per sheet is not going to work. I have heard of others using less although I use a minimum of 12 per 8x10 sheet.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Bruce,
your observation on how much actual chemical is needed for each sheet of 8x10 film was really interesting to me. What if I added a 1/2 oz. more hc110? I feel I need to keep my times around 7-8 minutes. Do you have any equation or idea as to how I may be able to achieve this with hc110? Thanks all of you for your ideas. Bertil and Maris that container you speak of seems genius.

Half an ounce is about 14.8 ml. Just adding that much will probably alter your development time significantly.

As to time, with continuous agitation it's supposed to vary by the square root of dilution. So if you double your dilution, you multiply your time by sqrt(2).

What I suggest is that you find yourself a good small metric graduate which will let you measure down to the single milliliter level. Then try your dilution of 1+90, which should give you (12)(91) = 1092 ml total. Your 3005 tank should be able to handle that. Give that a try with your current development time. See if your splotchiness changes any.

 

[Tim Boehm]

BTZS or a Jobo with a 3005 drum.

 

[Jordan.K]

Man...... Don and Bruce you guys are like mathematicians!!!!!!!

 

[mike c]

If you use a try or box close to the size of the film isn't hard to get the film out of the tray to the next one,how is that done.

MIKE c.

 

[Michael Kadillak]

Good gawd there must be a heck of a lot of people with nothing but time on their hands. One sheet at a time? Are you kidding me?

I don't care what film or developer you are using trays can work perfect each time every time that is when you know what you are doing. I do a minimum of six sheets of 8x10 in a single tray processing run and have never had a single problem once I learned to do it correctly. The resident experts are Paula Chamlee and Michael Smith who teach this technique one on one in their very inexpensive workshops at their studio in Bucks County PA. I acquired a brand new CPP2 unit and the inserts for ULF just prior to attending this workshop five years ago and only ended up using the JOBO four times. It is sitting on the basement in a box as I never used any other processing method. It really is that simple.

I look at the investment in learning this technique as an investment that pays dividends each and every time I process my film. If I had to do one sheet at a time after a week of shooting on the road I would be in the darkroom for such a protracted period I would go friggin nuts.

When you become more efficient your enjoyment in photography has the potential to increase exponentially.

Cheers!

 

[Jeremy]

Good gawd there must be a heck of a lot of people with nothing but time on their hands. One sheet at a time? Are you kidding me?

Heh, some could say the same for tray processing period. 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.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

teach this technique one on one in their very inexpensive workshops at their studio in Bucks County PA.

What's your definition of "very inexpensive"?

 

[Michael Kadillak]

What's your definition of "very inexpensive"?

$695 which is terribly inexpensive considering the material covered and the incredible learning that comes with it. They do these at their home which is their studio and darkroom and for me it was clearly a defining period. The ability to personally view the absolutely marvelous prints and see the process from inception to final print and ask any questions you may have on any subject. They are both consummate professionals to the letter of the word and truly wonderful people to be around.

The details on on their web site

michaelandpaula.com