8x11 film developing reel

[Minox]

For those interested, a few thoughts on the 8x11 film developing reel made by Film Stuff Lab.

 

[guangong]

I have similar reels made by Englishman who cut down plastic reels. I was also able to acquire a couple stainless steel reels, that I find somewhat easier to load. Since I “roll my own” Minox film, I find the Minox tank difficult because I seldom can punch the anchor hole properly, but tank works very well with store bought cassettes.
I also have steel reels for Minolta 16.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've saved that maker's page -- it'd be nice to have some 16 mm reels for my Paterson (I've got a Yankee Universal, but it's annoying to load and agitate), not to mention a source for 8x11 reels if/when I get a Minox.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

I'm not shooting/developing Minox film anymore, but I did 1967-1970 (factory loads of TX) and 1995-2018 (mostly home loads of various films).

I never bothered trying to make an anchor hole in any of the hundreds of rolls of self-loaded Minox film I developed in the Minox tank. I just used a small piece of masking tape to attach the end ("start"?) of the film to the bottom/start of the "reel" ("column"?), folding the tape over the bottom edge, securing it to the inside.

This method never failed. I used it for lots of TMX, plus other 100-speed films like PX, FP4, and APX 100, mostly in D-76 1:1.

Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. This was one of the lessons I learned from another of my youthful interests, stage magic. People always tried to figure out the tricks, usually thinking in terms of sophisticated, complicated electrical/electronic and mechanical methods... when it was usually just double-stick tape and rubber bands!

 

[ic-racer]

For those interested, a few thoughts on the 8x11 film developing reel made by Film Stuff Lab.

Did you notice any uneven development. I use Jobo reels that were cut down, but the spirals impinge on the development area, so some frames have lines of under-development as shown in this print. It is hard to burn those away while printing.

 

[ic-racer]

I still use the Jobo reels because MOST frames come out fine. For example, only two frames away, this one printed fine:

 

[Donald Qualls]

I think there's more to that than the reel -- I see multiple stripes of varying density across that first image. Bottom (presumable top of the reel) is light on the positive, so dark on the negative -- then dark, wide light, dark, light, dark going from bottom to top. Almost what I'd expect with a slow travel focal plane shutter under fluorescent lighting with short-persistence phosphor.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I have some cut down Unicolor plastic reels and I get those bands of weak developing too using rotary processing.

I have a Minox tank but I've never used it.

The easiest way to load the metal reels is with the emulsion out.

I've been thinking about making a tube and taping the film to it. No more reels. Even better if it could be made with the channels like the Super 8 JOBO thingy.

 

[xya]

I used the Minox tank and tape too. Have to come back to it one of theses days....

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've been thinking about making a tube and taping the film to it.

I made a tube tank like this -- ABS drain pipe, with a second, double capped (glued, sealed) pipe inside (this required turning the caps down on my lathe to permit liquid flow past the caps). The caps provided clearance between the inner tube and the outer, so film wrapped and taped on the inner tube couldn't touch the outer. Additionally, the inner tube displaced volume so I could develop a roll of 16 mm (or Minox, if I'd ever had such a camera) in about two fluid ounces of chemistry. No light trap needed on the filler/drain tube, the lengths were selected so that the end cap of the inner tube acted as a light baffle.

Film with a heavy dye AHU may require refixing or sodium sulfite solution soak out of the tube to fully clear the dye (as would be the case for sheet film developed against the inner wall of a tube), but otherwise the thing worked astonishingly well for costing under $10 in parts (I already had ABS pipe glue on hand).

 

[xkaes]

Lots of ideas for submini reels at:

http://www.subclub.org/creative/reel.htm

 

[qqphot]

fwiw i've just gotten a couple of these 3d printed 8x11 reels and they are a joy to load, but I am seeing pretty substantial underdeveloped bands at the edges. My first tries were with inversion, but I'll try rotary next to see if it's any better. I really hope these can be made to work because its a pain to develop otherwise. Forgive the thumb obstructing the bottom left corner.

 

[ic-racer]

What I have done is make a hole in the negative strip, pass this modified cable tie around the hole and wedge the split ends in the reel so it pushes the film all the way to the center of the reel. What this accomplishes is to force the film base to the outer portion of the spiral so no part of the spiral is touching the emulsion side.
This works 100%, but it is very fiddly to do it in the dark. I gave up doing it a while back, but may start using it again.

The cable tie needs to have its locking mechanism defeated, then the end needs to be split, but still able to fit through the collar.

 

[qqphot]

I'm trying to picture what you're describing, and I suppose if I try to do it I'll eventually figure it out, but I'm afraid the hassle will be too much!

I have not yet managed to develop film on these reels without the edges being substantially underdeveloped, either by rotary agitation or inversion. I'd sure prefer to use them if practical, and i'm sure other people have good success with them, but I don't see how. I wonder if it works better with highly active developers that don't exhaust much in the emulsion.

I'm thinking about trying just the center spiral of a minox daylight tank, and dip-and-dunking it in a beaker.

 

[ic-racer]

I have two minox films drying. What I did was load them on the plastic spiral reels with emulsion side out. I'll see if that works.

 

[Minox]

I have two minox films drying. What I did was load them on the plastic spiral reels with emulsion side out. I'll see if that works.

Tried that, didn't work (for me at least). The trouble is that when load the film emulsion side inwards (to the centre of the reel), the film strip pushes itself into the spiral, due to the curvature of the film strip, in a "centrifugal" sort of thing. When load the film emulsion side facing outwards, the same curvature of the film does the same, but in reverse: it pushes into the spiral, only this time in a "centripetal" manner. Simpler put, in one instance the film tightens itself inwards, in the other instance the film expands itself outwards. I hope this explanation makes sense.

I haven't looked into this properly, but processing the film strips in both positions gave me the same results: underdevelopment of the sides of the negative. What is curious is that all the films I've developed with this reel had some frames properly developed, say 3-4 out of 30. This could be due to the film strip staying clear from the grooves at some point.

Could be that the groove vertical separators are too straight, and thus making the film adhere too firm to them? Again, I haven't gave much thought to this entire thing, but it would seem that this issue renders the reel somewhat less usable.

I hope you have good results with your trial, and I wish to hear about this, if possible. Thank you !

 

[qqphot]

Tried that, didn't work (for me at least). The trouble is that when load the film emulsion side inwards (to the centre of the reel), the film strip pushes itself into the spiral, due to the curvature of the film strip, in a "centrifugal" sort of thing. When load the film emulsion side facing outwards, the same curvature of the film does the same, but in reverse: it pushes into the spiral, only this time in a "centripetal" manner. Simpler put, in one instance the film tightens itself inwards, in the other instance the film expands itself outwards. I hope this explanation makes sense.

I haven't looked into this properly, but processing the film strips in both positions gave me the same results: underdevelopment of the sides of the negative. What is curious is that all the films I've developed with this reel had some frames properly developed, say 3-4 out of 30. This could be due to the film strip staying clear from the grooves at some point.

Could be that the groove vertical separators are too straight, and thus making the film adhere too firm to them? Again, I haven't gave much thought to this entire thing, but it would seem that this issue renders the reel somewhat less usable.

I hope you have good results with your trial, and I wish to hear about this, if possible. Thank you !

I agree - I think the only chance of avoiding underdevelopment of the edges would be if the grooves were quite V-shaped rather than square-edged, so that only the actual side of the film strip would likely be touching anything. But that might cause problems with loading or staying in place in the reel.

When I've examined strips of film sitting in the reel, it seems that it is a bit wavy so that some areas aren't fully in contact with the edge of the groove. Pushing the film all the way to the center may help a bit, as it takes on a tighter curve and pushes outward more, which might protect the emulsion from contact a bit better.

Applying constant pressure toward the cure, as @ic-racer contrived with his zip-tie system, does seem to ensure proper positioning in the channel, but I still can't figure out how to maintain the pressure continuously through processing, or how to set it up in the dark.

 

[Minox]

I thought of that; perhaps next time I would need to tape the film strip to a long leader and push it all the way to touch the core and push onto it. Then the leader will be blocked by some means in the reel. This can be done ( and in my initial review I wrote of that - a wedge or sliver of silicon slotted into the very margin of the reel to keep the leader end blocked, if that makes any sense). This way the actual film will be pushed and curve more, so it will be free of the edges. It doesn't need much, just a mouse whisker's, as it were ...

 

[ic-racer]

I looked back at my notes and I had not processed Minox for over a year. Indeed this is the way I have been doing it; loading emulsion side out.
This is HP5/35mm by the way. When cut and loaded into the Minox cassette, it takes on quite a good curl. So, when loading the reel emulsion side out, the base side hugs the inner groove.

These were just dry and on my light table. I inverted some of them and they look pretty good.

Below is a picture of the film being processed. I'm using modified Jobo reels in a Jobo processor, rotation "P" 24C, 4.5 min T-max developer. I have two reels, so I can do two at a time in a 1500 series tank.

These strips are from the cameras I just fixed. Top two are Yashica Atoron Electro, with the ASA wheel set just past the 200 mark (as far as it will go).
Bottom strips are from the Yashica Atorton non-Electro + Reveni light meter.

 

[qqphot]

That's interesting, thoes don't seem to have underdeveloped edges, at least as far as one can see in the photos. I wonder if it is partly a matter of what type of film is used, too - maybe some curl differently than others when wet?

 

[Minox]

So what you're saying is that is a matter of just loading the film emulsion side facing out, if I understand you correctly. Could be, but I have tried both ways and it doesn't get better.

Granted, some films have softer base than others, like Fomapan is softer than say, Rollei 80s. However, given the curvature of the negatives, it doesn't matter what face you load the film, it always touches the reel emulsion side.

Of course, the constant rotation or more vigorous agitation of the tank could very well create enough flow to make the chemicals go between the edges of the reel and film. Could this be the explanation of your recently developed negatives, which shows proper development?

If the film would be recurved, so it would hug the reel base side, then all would be well. But this is unfeasible, from what I know.

 

[MattKing]

Does anyone develop 8x11 film by taping it to 35mm substrate and using a 35mm reel?

 

[Trask]

Does anyone develop 8x11 film by taping it to 35mm substrate and using a 35mm reel?

...the sound you just heard is me slapping my forehead. I have a minox tank that works just fine, but I've also looked at home-made alternatives which included taping the film emulsion-side out to a cylinder etc. But I never thought of what you have suggested. I do wonder about how a "double-thick" film would fit into the reel, i.e., with the Minox film reverse-mounted, would the film strip be too thick to load in the reel, and would the emulsion side of the film, facing outward, be too close to the film on the next succeeding turn of the film. One way to find out!

 

[MattKing]

...the sound you just heard is me slapping my forehead. I have a minox tank that works just fine, but I've also looked at home-made alternatives which included taping the film emulsion-side out to a cylinder etc. But I never thought of what you have suggested. I do wonder about how a "double-thick" film would fit into the reel, i.e., with the Minox film reverse-mounted, would the film strip be too thick to load in the reel, and would the emulsion side of the film, facing outward, be too close to the film on the next succeeding turn of the film. One way to find out!

If you use steel reels, you could choose to use the ones designed for 20-24 exposure loads.
But I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[ic-racer]

This is what I think is happening. If I load the film with the curl, then the film hugs the reel tightly and does not allow chemistry to the emulsion where it touches the reel at the edges.

If I load it backwards, against the curl, the outward facing emulsion indeed touches the outer spiral, but only very loosely. So the sloshing of chemistry allows can easily get between the film and the reel.