• 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

Anybody using one of these for 4X5 film processing?

Morgan posted on his last ebay batch: "This is my last listing for the Year. The next listing will be mid January."

- Charlie
 
I don't think so.
If it needs a 3 reel tank, you need a 6 reel tank to stack two... An with 2 liter of chemistry, you'll save on the gym club...
 
The procesor holds 6 though right, so it'd be 12 sheets?
 
Ahh, just finished my morning coffee (and yes, it's noon here)

This processor seems like a no-brainer. Tray developing is kind of a PITA compared to this, assuming the results are comparable, and shoot, they'll probably be better with less scratches.

Anyone got a Paterson 3-reel they want to sell?
 
I don't have any more 2 liters paterson tanks. I use mostly stainless steel tanks.
Have a couple of paterson 3 sizes that work with the 2 Morgan set I have.
No spare sorry.
:-(
 
1st Road Test

I received Morgan's 'MOD Photographic 5x4 Film Processor' yesterday from London (to New York) in 10 days and tried it out this evening on 6 sheets. In short, the appeal to his holder is that it simply works and works simply.

I found that the sheet holder will lie on its side in my changing bag, so you can orient it and then operate with both hands. That helped me find the slots on each side and made loading a bit more positive than holding with one hand and aiming with the other. You do have to practice loading it 1 or 2 times to get the sensitivity and feel for the spacing of the sheets, as Morgan describes in his youtube video. Level of skill is similar to loading a Hewes reel.

The only thing I had to watch out for was moving the holder around in my little changing bag. The drooping bag can snag a corner of a sheet as you move it about and you may need to re-set the film into its slot. To counter, I laid the tank on its side and worked sideways, sliding the tube and holder when filled. My bag is a challenge when loading film holders and the Unicolor drum too, and I suspect would be for any 4x5 day tank. It's tight with all the film holders, tank, top and sheet holder all jumbled inside. A changing tent or dark room would be ideal, and large format folks already know this. (I'm just getting into 4x5 processing from 35 and 120 and I'm using what I have.)

I used a liter of chems at each stage, but a good old-fashioned quart is perfect, as I later measured. With the Unidrum/Uniroller rig, I was using only 300ml of XTOL per 4 sheets, which is the advantage of that method, so it uses roughly 2x the quantity of chems of a rotary system.

I was looking at the Combi-Plan and this costs the difference (in the US) of the 3-reel Paterson tank (#116), if you don't already have one. The Combi-Plan is probably pretty similar in use. The advantage of the Paterson is the quick fill and pour, if that really matters to your processing.

I can't see myself spending $400 for a 3010 or 3006 and I believe that this option comes pretty close to the ease of use of the Jobo tanks for hand processing. It's particularly impressive that Morgan sorted this out and created such a simple, compact and 'finished' solution. Well done. I'm very pleased.

- Charlie
 
Morgan has again posted his processors on *bay under item #130471750274. This is a great product that deserves support. Should he have even more success with this processor, he can then go on to develop a system for 5x7. etc.
 
dtheld said:
Morgan has again posted his processors on *bay under item #130471750274. This is a great product that deserves support. Should he have even more success with this processor, he can then go on to develop a system for 5x7. etc.
Click to expand...

This is a really great solution if you have a Paterson 3 reel tank. If you don't have a tank, then you troll eBay for one cheap.

I suspect these will drive up the price of Paterson tanks.
 
Has anyone tried this with a Phototherm SSK-4 ? Would be an ideal solution to do half-again as much film per tank, for 1/5 the price of the phototherm 4x5 insert.

-Ed
 
EdSawyer said:
Has anyone tried this with a Phototherm SSK-4 ? Would be an ideal solution to do half-again as much film per tank, for 1/5 the price of the phototherm 4x5 insert.

-Ed
Click to expand...

I haven't had a chance to try it yet. I'll give it a try in the spring after I have some more work finished on the farm. I have both a real Photothern 4x5 insert and Morgan's insert.

But I'd give it less than a 1% chance of working on a Phototherm. There are two problems, both related to dynamic drag of fluid on the leading edge during the rotation.

First, in Morgan's unit the majority of the leading edge, regardless of which direction the spindle is turning at the time, is exposed to the dynamic fluid pressure, while in the Phototherm insert the leading edge in both directions is solidly supported. This will tend to flip the sheet out of the holding lip.

Second, the Phototherm holder coils the film into a circular arc that is concentric around the axis of rotation. Morgan's device bows the film in such a way that there will be hydrodynamic lift generated at the apex of the curve tending to pull the film from the holding lips. Once the film edge clears the holding lip, the drag on the leading edge is probably going to curl it into the side of tanks.

Again, I haven't tried any of this, so this is pure speculation.

In Morgan's defense, he didn't design the device to work in a rotary processor, so the fact that it isn't well suited to an application outside its design scope is not a drawback. Morgan's design is great for what it's designed to do.
 
how much chemical does the patterson tank require for 6 sheets of 4x5? And would this work with rotary processing? that way I can save more chemical.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rinthe said:
how much chemical does the patterson tank require for 6 sheets of 4x5? And would this work with rotary processing? that way I can save more chemical.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the sheets will not stay in place if you put the tank on a rotary base.

It is designed for gental inversion, and works well with that method.
 
In the 3 reel Paterson tank, it takes 1 liter for for processing six sheets of 4x5.
 
Mike, thanks for the info. It would be cool if it worked in the SSK, but understandable why it probably won't. At least the Phototherm one *exists* at all, which is a good thing.

In any case this one mentioned in the thread seems like a great solution, and very reasonably priced.
 
Dear All,

Happy New Year.

And thanks for all the support from you guys. This forum has defiantly helped sell some processors.

Sorry for not being active in the discussions recently, but again on a mission traveling and taking pics. Off again tomorrow to cover Menswear and Haute Couture in Italy & France. If anyone is interested you can see what i get up to on Dazed Digital or the International Herald Tribune (although harder here as i mainly just do print).

I've been spending a bit of time trying to make some new processors- especially a 5X7 version. I have an ad hoc solution, which will not work in a paterson tank, but will be able to process 6 sheets. And!!! When i say Ah Hoc, i really mean it. It won't be too difficult to master, but will involve a new tank system.

I'm away now til Feb, but if you'd like to get a processor please email me-

morgan@modphotographic.co.uk

and I'm very up for selling outside ebay, so mail me if your interested. My next auction will be on the 22nd Feb.

Also if you have any questions/ideas, let me know.

All the best,

Morgan.
 
Received my Mod Proessor yesterday and had the chance to try it out.

All in all, I'm glad I bought it, but my maiden voyage did not go as smoothly as some report.

First impression however, is that the unit is a tad flimsy. It feels surprisingly fragile and I just don't have faith that it would survive being dropped on a hard floor. Indeed, the instruction card says "Do Not Drop". Even holding it in my hand, I think I could break it if I squeezed too hard.

Now, I hope that Morgan, or anyone else, doesn't take this the wrong way; I feel that products only get better if people are critical of them. The MOD processor fills a need that no other unit does, and for that alone it's worth having.

2nd Issue: I continually had one piece of film that would "jump the tracks" and become contacted with its neighbor. Now, the reason I know this is because I was reversal processing and after the bleach could safely take the film out and inspect it. It was the innermost film on one side, and 1 or 2 of it's "points of contact with the processor" (know what I mean?) would come "unhitched" and it would go into the middle film's tracks. I probably reset it 3 times and yet it continued to do this. This was very disconcerting, but oddly enough, wasn't detrimental to the processing.

Has anyone else had a similar problem? I did a bit of spin-agitation with the spinner stick and also inversion agitation. I can't say if one or the other was responsible for this problem though. The instructions do suggest "gentle agitation" and the inversion, despite how calmly you do it, seems less than gentle simply because there's a liter of liquid sloshing around in there.

(and, FYI to those who know what I'm talking about, my screen-plate positive was not one of the sheets sticking... see RGB-screens thread)
 
Hey Chris,

Thanks for taking the time to give an honest opinion of my processor.

Firstly i like to say that this unit was built out of necessity. I have an editorial shoot tomorrow which i'll be shooting 60-80 sheets, to process that would cost between £300 - £400, approx $480- $645. The cost savings by doing this with my processor are huge, its mainly a question of how much you judge you time to be. My assistant and I can knock out about 30 sheets an hour, which means i can return contacts to a client the next day.

The processor is made of Acrylic, which is a brittle material, and if cold it can break when dropped, unfortunately at the moment this is the most affordable way to manufacture the unit. I will accommodate any one who has this problem, its not some sort of scam to sell more processors.

The issue of the sheets moving during developing did occur in the beginning, i think its a combination of factors. To start you have to really make sure the sheets are loaded correctly, it becomes much easier the more you do it, and being very gentle with the agitation. The inversion should be very slow and consistent, and the emptying of chemicals the same. some times i forget i'm doing sheets not roll film and get a bit carried away. Its is a paterson tank, but not with roll film in it.

I hope that helps in some respect.

Cheers,

Morgan.
 
It's a positive to see the inventor.seller participating on the forum- I'm still thinking about this (using other system), and knowing someone cares is an important factor when it comes time to make a decision.
 
Morgan,

Thanks much for your response. I hope I didn't seem too harsh by saying "flimsy". Treated appropriately I'm sure I'll have no problems with it. If a more sturdy & flexible material could be used in the future, that would be awesome, though keeping it translucent is important for reversal processing. This proccesor is great at RPing.

As for the problem I was experiencing, I had another chance to test it when I was fixing/clearing some sheets of 4x5" for an alt. process. Again, I found that the innermost sheet on one side was bowing enough that it stuck to its neighboring sheet. It did not however, "jump the tracks" like last time.

I did my best to agitate exactly like you demonstrate in your video, and although it occurred after my initial fixing cylce (10 minutes, 3-4 inversions every 30 seconds or so), I couldn't get the problem to occur again reliably, using water as a test liquid.

Since I loaded the sheets in light, I was sure that they were correctly loaded. I'm now convinced that spin agitation would be a safe method, but I'm also not sure if that's ideal for development. However, emphasizing gentle inversion might be the simplest solution.

Lastly... it occurred to me that ridges or teeth at the "roof" and "floor" of the two outside "plates" might alleviate this problem.

At any rate, thanks again. Communicating with the inventor of a product is a rare and welcome opportunity these days, and for that I am very grateful.

- Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register