Any Interest in Slosher Trays for 4x5 and 8x10 or other formats?

[Will S]

I have just started using a brush to develop and was thinking a slosher tray where I can hold a couple of 8x10 sheets or 4 4x5 sheets while I am painting would be helpful. I've found some pictures of the perfect tray in an older thread here, but it doesn't seem like they are made anymore. If I was able to create something similar and get it manufactured would anyone here be interested in them? I'm definitely going to make a couple for myself, but if there is interest I'll talk to my buddy here in madison at Sector 67 about mass producing as many as we need. No guarantees at this point - I just want to get a general feel for interest in the idea.

Thanks,

Will

 

[rmann]

You can buy these from photographer's formulary - photoformulary.com

 

[gphoto120]

I have one for sale on the Large Format forum if interested....

GP

 

[Will S]

Just to be clear I'm talking about the stainless steel wire type - not the plastic ones.

 

[rmann]

Just to be clear I'm talking about the stainless steel wire type - not the plastic ones.

Would they cost less than plastic? I did not know that they were made out of wire, do you have a reference to photos for this type of tray?

 

[Rick A]

I would think that stainless wires would have a tendency to scratch film, I have considered plastic slosher trays from Formulary. I'll probably buy one if I ever get an 8x10 kit.

 

[John Koehrer]

Something like a Honeywell color canoe but that was stainless sheet & limited sizes.

Do you think you could fabricate something along the idea of curved sides using fiberglass screening? As long as the materials are inert
the paper won't know the difference.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Is this the stainless steel wire basket (and May, 2013 thread) you are referring to?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

If so, then yes, I'd be as interested now as I was then in that thread.

I always thought that a design wherein one could nest the baskets reasonably close together might work to allow larger numbers of negatives to be processed within a tray at the same time without compromising a horizontal agitation protocol. That might also serve to differentiate the wire product from the Formulary-style heavy sheet plastic product.

For example, a vertical three tray nest of four 4x5 negatives each means 12 negatives per processing run, none of which would ever touch each other, or touch human hands. Same principle for multiple 8x10s.

Ken

 

[MartinP]

If you are using that much liquid, in the vertically stacked idea above, then you could just go over to deep-tanks and hangers to get perfect negs every time. One positive thing about four sheets of 4x5" (or a single 8x10") held in a thin plastic slosher is the relatively low chemical volume needed, for either a 'big' 8x10" tray or a 'small' 9 1/2x12" tray.

 

[Will S]

If you are using that much liquid, in the vertically stacked idea above, then you could just go over to deep-tanks and hangers to get perfect negs every time. One positive thing about four sheets of 4x5" (or a single 8x10") held in a thin plastic slosher is the relatively low chemical volume needed, for either a 'big' 8x10" tray or a 'small' 9 1/2x12" tray.

The low chemical amounts are nice with the hake brush too. I've got btzs tubes for 4x5 I've used with a lot of success, but the brush seems to be the answer for even 8x10 development (so far at least).

I'm meeting with my "engineer" shortly. 100' of wire is about $30 is all I know about pricing now. I may explore using the 3d printer as well. You can get very interesting and strong structures with it that you can't otherwise and that would be in a plastic that should be scratch free.

Thanks,

Will

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

If you are using that much liquid, in the vertically stacked idea above, then you could just go over to deep-tanks and hangers to get perfect negs every time. One positive thing about four sheets of 4x5" (or a single 8x10") held in a thin plastic slosher is the relatively low chemical volume needed, for either a 'big' 8x10" tray or a 'small' 9 1/2x12" tray.

Compact deep tanks can leave edge artifacts. I have a nice set of four 1-gallon 8x10 SS tanks housed in a purpose-built SS water jacket tank that I've used with standard hangers for years.

Because the edges of the hangers are just inside the edges of the developing tank (an attempt to minimize solution volume) reflected turbulence causes overdevelopment of the film edges. Especially the vertical edges. This is one reason the standard recommendation when tray developing sheet film is to use a tray that's one format size larger than the target film sheets.

One solution to the artifact problem would be stacked wire basket sloshers. I already simulate this using the standard hangers laid flat in oversized trays for the development step only. After development I transfer them back to the deep tanks for stop, fix, and wash aid. Then suspend them in my 16x20 washer for washing. No artifacts with this method. But only one 8x10 (or four 4x5) sheets per run.*

Another solution may be to DIY-convert the 1-gallon developer deep tank to gaseous burst. As I use one-shot developers I don't believe there's any need for nitrogen. Simple air should work fine. So should manual agitation timing. Both are what happens in the small tank inversion protocols already. This is currently on my to-do list to try.

And a third artifact solution would be to simply use oversized deep tanks. But the solution volumes required in a non-replenished system then become huge.

I have also tried the SS Nikor 4x5 tanks. Using homebrew D-76d at 1+1 leaves serious inner-edge overdevelopment artifacts on 4x5 sheets. This is because upon inversion all of the air inside the tank must bubble up through a small central hole in the sheet cage. This turbulence passes directly over the inner edges of the loaded film sheets. The outer edges do not experience this turbulence.

There is also a problem for me with air bubbles trapped under the top cage plate leaving underdeveloped moving "spots" on the upper sheet edges. This artifact can be somewhat mitigated by adding a few drops of Edwal LFN to the developer to break up the bubbles.

And except for oversized deep tanks, developer solution volumes are inconsequential versus the expenses involved in making the negatives themselves. Especially 8x10 negatives. For me it would be a false economy to even worry about. Gasoline costs far more overall than developer.

So I'm definitely willing to look at SS wire basket sloshers. Very thin wire should leave virtually no artifact footprints.

Ken

* Note that it's also possible to buy and use one of those office-style wire paper trays to develop 8x10 sheets in a tray. Just make sure they are completely sealed with paint, vinyl, or sprayed with something by you. These work nice in 11x14 trays. But only for single sheets of 8x10.

 

[MartinP]

One gallon tanks meaning one US gallon? That is a bit tight I think, being about 3,8 ltrs versus the six litre tanks with five litres of (replenished D76) chemicals I used for years where I worked, too many decades ago. That's right though, assuming there is no mechanical problem with film damage, then the limitations of any particular method tend to show up around the edges of the sheets and next to frames or supports etc. - anything that makes for different sorts of agitation problem I suppose.

 

[Will S]

I went over to Sector 67 in Madison here today and (with a lot of great help from people there) put together a prototype in about an hour. One of the engineers there actually has an 8x10 enlarger (in storage) so he knew what I was talking about! Anyway, we decided to go with a piece of laser cut acrylic that I then shaped with a heat gun. If this design works out then I could do several at one time in the laser cutter and then bake them in an oven to shape/temper the slosher.

The beveled sides could be use to work out a stacking arrangement, but I think version 2 will have an cross-piece insert that drops into the middle to convert from 1 8x10 to 4 4x5, and also a slot for an insert that will stop the tray above from dropping too far if you want to stack them.

So, please take a look at the picture and let me know if you have any recommendations on the design. Smaller holes? Bigger holes? I'm going to try a few negatives and see how it works.

I could do polyethylene instead of acrylic, but it wouldn't be as pretty. The acrylic, however, will crack if dropped.

Time on the laser cutter was about $4.00 and the acrylic was $8. So I think we are looking at a price of about $25 shipped with a small donation to sector 67 for their time/facility included. Does that seem too expensive? Bigger holes would result in less laser-cutting time, and polyethylene might be cheaper if I need to get the cost lower.

Also, I'll post the svg so anyone with access to a laser cutter and materials can make their own!


Thanks,

Will

 

[barzune]

A few years ago, at a flea market, I saw these plastic baskets, which the vendor described as fruit baskets for berries. They certainly looked pretty big for berries, but I measured them at about 12 X 9 inches at the bottom, and bought the pile of them for $5.00. I ended up with 12 of them.

Whatever their original mission in life, they fit a sheet of 8 X 10 film or paper beautifully and, due to the slant of the sides, they nest with about 1/2 inch between. They also fit perfectly, with a bit, in an 11 X 14 tray.

I have a lifetime supply, but I have no idea of their source.