Better than FR tank for 4x5 that isn't discontinued?

peter k. · Nov 8, 2013

You do realize that's not helpful to the OP since he wants something different from FR tanks right?

yes... but I couldn't help it... ... they work, are simple, and hold twelve negs,,

Sometimes, are thoughts come around, and settle back at the beginning, after looking at all the other possibilities.. we find ourselves with a new attitude, about something we rejected, after seeing it in a new light and perhaps different perspective.

cmacd123 · Nov 8, 2013

One On topic point, Paterson did change the length of the centre core in the Paterson tanks when they designed the "Super System 4" If you use the wrong one you will sometimes get a light leak where the top goes into the core. The Light trap does not have a light path that is as long on the super tanks as well, and works best if the funnel is down all the way and locked.

Unfortunately the older series is no longer made.

CatLABS · Nov 9, 2013

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Film-Develo...d=100034&prg=1079&rk=3&rkt=8&sd=131042139330&

StoneNYC · Nov 9, 2013

CatLABS said:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Film-Develo...d=100034&prg=1079&rk=3&rkt=8&sd=131042139330&

This would be great if it sealed... How come they don't make something like this now but for full inversion? Seems just like a JOBO / Paterson hand tank design (light baffle wise) with a better ability to hold the sheets than the MOD54.

I've often wondered why the MOD54 doesn't have a top loading feature rather than putting it in from the side, it seems to me would make a lot more sense to sort of have it load similar to an FR tank, but still fit in a Paterson tank... Or am I the only one who doesn't see that that would make sense?

CatLABS · Nov 9, 2013

The Jobo 2509 already does exactly that.

JohnRichard · Nov 9, 2013

So I tried again with the FR this morning, and a few things I discovered.

First, I don't have the small plastic pieces that apparently come with it?
Second, I had to do math because I was only doing two sheets, not 12. No need to ruin a whole day of shooting.
Using Ilfosol 3, 1+14 would yield 100ml of developer use, which was dumb.
So I guessed and used sort of .4+14.6 (math is hard).
So dilution was not standard, but turned out to be ok for two sheets.
Printing later this week.

Spinning the box as opposed to lateral agitation seemed to produce OK results.

Tom1956 · Nov 9, 2013

The small plastic pieces: The straight one with the slot in it is the loader. The U shaped one is theclamp that keeps the films pushed down from sliding upwards or flopping out of their slots. The square flat one is the light trap.
It's a tough tank to use, but it does work if you don't load all 12 slots, causing inadequate agitation and mixing.

StoneNYC · Nov 10, 2013

JohnRichard said:
So I tried again with the FR this morning, and a few things I discovered.

First, I don't have the small plastic pieces that apparently come with it?
Second, I had to do math because I was only doing two sheets, not 12. No need to ruin a whole day of shooting.
Using Ilfosol 3, 1+14 would yield 100ml of developer use, which was dumb.
So I guessed and used sort of .4+14.6 (math is hard).
So dilution was not standard, but turned out to be ok for two sheets.
Printing later this week.

Spinning the box as opposed to lateral agitation seemed to produce OK results.

No one kill me for saying this, but I've re-used Ilfsol 3 1+9 dilution up to 6 times with no ill effects, not sure how or why, but when I first started, I didn't like the idea of killing so much developer over just one roll, so I decided to test out re-using it, on the 6th run I started to notice some lessing of the overall development of the film, and higher grain, so I stopped there. I did this for a while until I switched to Rodinal which is so cheap and easy, who cares!

Ilfsol 3 is an under appreciated developer, it's high quality results aren't DD-X, but certainly better than HC-110/Rodinal in sharpness, However the cost is high per roll compared to HC-110/Rodinal... then again, you get what you pay for. I'm satisfied with Rodinal as my main Dev and DD-X as my "pushing Dev" for D3200 or HP5+ sheet when pushing.

Sorry got off track, anyway point is, if you're only developing 2 sheets and you keep the leftover Ilfsol 3 from last time (and it's only been about a week since you used that) then I wouldn't hesitate to use that again before dumping it. I wouldn't do this with other Dev's as I haven't tested that with other Dev's, and probably won't, I was young and foolish, but it works.

StoneNYC · Nov 10, 2013

Tom1956 said:
The small plastic pieces: The straight one with the slot in it is the loader. The U shaped one is theclamp that keeps the films pushed down from sliding upwards or flopping out of their slots. The square flat one is the light trap.
It's a tough tank to use, but it does work if you don't load all 12 slots, causing inadequate agitation and mixing.

I never had "trouble" developing with the FR, though I only did it briefly, I never had Dev issues, it's just that it takes SO much more developer than the MOD54 and the FR doesn't seal either, so the nasty fixer smell comes out in droves, and I couldn't take it... that was my main issue, it leaks when you agitate and smells bad when the fixer time comes around.

StoneNYC · Nov 10, 2013

CatLABS said:
The Jobo 2509 already does exactly that.

Does that reel fit in the Paterson tanks, or is it too big?

If so I would assume those jobo rotary tank sized things take more than 1L to develop by hand? or am I wrong?

CatLABS · Nov 10, 2013

Jobo reels are in compatible with paterson tanks.

The minimum chemistry needed for the Jobo 2520 is 270ml for 6 sheets, 640ml for 12 sheets in the 2550.

(all Jobo tank capacities are here: http://jobo-usa.com/images/manuals/tank_and_drum_capacities.pdf).

Developing by hand does not necessarily mean inversion, tanks can be rotated on any flat surface, or in place on the inexpensive Jobo roller base #1509 if one need to or wants to save space.

Wayne · Nov 10, 2013

You mean 2509n. Also you may want to change your page settings as this is page 1 for me (40 posts per page in my settings)

Captain_joe6 said:
I'm amazed it took 3 pages for someone to mention the Jobo 2590n. That's like the go-to tank for multi-sheet daylight processing of 4x5 film, used with or without the corresponding motorized processor. If you can get one with the loader base, its pretty awesome. On the flip side, if you've got hands that aren't freakishly small, they're easy enough to load up on their own. You just have to be patient with yourself. I've used them a number of times and haven't had a single issue.

StoneNYC · Nov 10, 2013

CatLABS said:
Jobo reels are in compatible with paterson tanks.

The minimum chemistry needed for the Jobo 2520 is 270ml for 6 sheets, 640ml for 12 sheets in the 2550.

(all Jobo tank capacities are here: http://jobo-usa.com/images/manuals/tank_and_drum_capacities.pdf).

Developing by hand does not necessarily mean inversion, tanks can be rotated on any flat surface, or in place on the inexpensive Jobo roller base #1509 if one need to or wants to save space.

Sadly, this doesn't work for me at all, I don't want to roll my tank, because I don't develop that way, especially in black and white, I only do a tiny tiny very gentle inversion once per minute, and it sits the rest of the time. I use Rodinal mostly and technique changed results significantly with this developer.

miha · Nov 10, 2013

Stone it's 1 litre vs 1,5 litre if you want the tanks to be full.

Ed Bray · Nov 10, 2013

CatLABS said:
Jobo reels are in compatible with paterson tanks.

The minimum chemistry needed for the Jobo 2520 is 270ml for 6 sheets, 640ml for 12 sheets in the 2550.

(all Jobo tank capacities are here: http://jobo-usa.com/images/manuals/tank_and_drum_capacities.pdf).

Developing by hand does not necessarily mean inversion, tanks can be rotated on any flat surface, or in place on the inexpensive Jobo roller base #1509 if one need to or wants to save space.

The 270ml you have quoted may well be enough to physically cover the film when using some form of rotation, but, depending on the developer and dilution, it may not be enough active developer to allow full development for 120 square inches of film.

StoneNYC · Nov 10, 2013

miha said:
Stone it's 1 litre vs 1,5 litre if you want the tanks to be full.

Yea, I got that, 1L is my max, alas... Maybe I'll design my own better one and market it

It seems to me if the tolerances on the mod 54 or better, this wouldn't be an issue, the film would stay put and not shimmy back-and-forth, but there's at least a millimeter or two of space on the top and bottom for the film to shift up-and-down, I don't understand why there's so much space. Also if instead of having the film be with teeth, if they were actually tracks, the film would stay more still, and be less prone to scratching in the first place.

I come from a long line of engineers, I'm the first in 4 generations to not be one by trade, but it still is ingrained in me, and it just drives me nuts that something better couldn't have been designed its so simple I don't understand, if I only had the money, I would design it myself and patent it.

miha · Nov 10, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I come from a long line of engineers, I'm the first in 4 generations to not be one by trade, but it still is ingrained in me, and it just drives me nuts that something better couldn't have been designed its so simple I don't understand, if I only had the money, I would design it myself and patent it.

JOBO already did it.

StoneNYC · Nov 10, 2013

miha said:
JOBO already did it.

Didn't we just "figure out" that the jobo tank doesn't fit inside of a Paterson hand developing tank? And takes more than 1L of chemistry?

So obviously they DIDN'T do this. Sure they did it for those that can pay thousands for for a processor, or want automation, but what about home processing by hand and not using excess chemistry? Just make a darn reel that fits into the home systems, it's not that hard...

miha · Nov 10, 2013

Since when is Paterson home system and Jobo is not? There is no need for any kind of automation with JOBO, just treat is as a standard tank, and 0,5 litre of rodinal at 1+50 is not that big of a difference is it?

MattKing · Nov 10, 2013

StoneNYC said:
Didn't we just "figure out" that the jobo tank doesn't fit inside of a Paterson hand developing tank? And takes more than 1L of chemistry?

So obviously they DIDN'T do this. Sure they did it for those that can pay thousands for for a processor, or want automation, but what about home processing by hand and not using excess chemistry? Just make a darn reel that fits into the home systems, it's not that hard...

The Paterson tanks are smaller inside than the JOBO ones. If you tried to use a JOBO type holder in a Paterson tank, the chemistry would flow in a different manner, thus potentially leading to uneven development.

So the process of designing inserts for a competitor's tank is not a simple or inexpensive one.

If you are concerned about the larger volumes of chemistry and costs involved in using a JOBO when agitation is by inversion, then move to using a replenishment regime for your developer. If you use X-Tol in a replenishment regime, your developer costs are probably about 5 cents a 4x5 sheet, and you can happily develop single sheets without being concerned about waste.

StoneNYC · Nov 10, 2013

miha said:
Since when is Paterson home system and Jobo is not? There is no need for any kind of automation with JOBO, just treat is as a standard tank, and 0,5 litre of rodinal at 1+50 is not that big of a difference is it?

It's a big deal because all of my dev/stop/fix/hypo-clear bottles are 1L and the next size up is 2L and I would have to use that much more chemistry and new/giant bottles I don't have room for.

MattKing said:
The Paterson tanks are smaller inside than the JOBO ones. If you tried to use a JOBO type holder in a Paterson tank, the chemistry would flow in a different manner, thus potentially leading to uneven development.

So the process of designing inserts for a competitor's tank is not a simple or inexpensive one.

If you are concerned about the larger volumes of chemistry and costs involved in using a JOBO when agitation is by inversion, then move to using a replenishment regime for your developer. If you use X-Tol in a replenishment regime, your developer costs are probably about 5 cents a 4x5 sheet, and you can happily develop single sheets without being concerned about waste.

JOBO makes a hand processing tank that takes the same exact reels, center tube, etc that Paterson does, so it would support their own systems too. Or heck Paterson could make one!

I don't want nor like x-tol both as a powder dev, and as it's mixed keeping properties are horrid and unstable based on lots of stuff I've read, I don't want to work with a replenishment system as my developing is sporadic and unpredictable and I don't want to deal with keeping track of when I last filled / used it and at what point I have to replenish it etc.

I'm not worried about waste, I don't want to have to use larger storage bottles for all my chemistry. Plus I've dialed in all of the exhaustion rates for my dev's and more volume with the same amount if film = a change in exhaustion.

miha · Nov 10, 2013

If I was using the JOBO I'd get a 1500 ml graduate to mix my developer and that's it. No need for stop and hypo clear, so even less bottles that take up the storage space. Fixing would be done with 0,5l of solution and rolling the tank on a table.

StoneNYC · Nov 10, 2013

miha said:
If I was using the JOBO I'd get a 1500 ml graduate to mix my developer and that's it. No need for stop and hypo clear, so even less bottles that take up the storage space. Fixing would be done with 0,5l of solution and rolling the tank on a table.

Fine, and that is your method, I have mine, it works and I'm not changing my whole system, lol, I'm greatful for the input but get frustrated after a while when people on here try to change all your methodology to THEIR method when you only want to solve one issue they want you to change everything instead of creating a solution to the question at hand you create larger issues by changing everything.

walbergb · Nov 10, 2013

John,
Would you consider a simple homemade slosher? See my earlier (there was a url link here which no longer exists) (#6)

miha · Nov 10, 2013

StoneNYC said:
Fine, and that is your method, I have mine, it works and I'm not changing my whole system, lol, I'm greatful for the input but get frustrated after a while when people on here try to change all your methodology to THEIR method when you only want to solve one issue they want you to change everything instead of creating a solution to the question at hand you create larger issues by changing everything.

I newer thought this is about you, and certainly didn't want you to get frustrated, but you've made a couple of succesive assumptions which were wrong and could be misleading to OP so I've addressed them. And I'm happy you are content with your method of film developing.

Better than FR tank for 4x5 that isn't discontinued?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency