Cleaning SS spools

[Cerebum]

I have used Paterson spools since I started with film (not that long ago) and I generally have problems with 36 exposure rolls jamming. I have some adox chs100ii in my retina and I don't want any issues so I bought a used, boxed Kestrel SS tank from eBay (£8, bargain). It came with a 120 spool. Another seller was selling 35mm spools @ £4.99 each so I bought a couple. I was wondering if there was a way of ensuring they are 100% clean prior to using. Yes, I know about shiny new ones made here in the UK and may well .....will invest but right now my budget is pretty much zero so any cleaning tips would be gratefully recieved

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

This is not a big problem. Just give them a good wash in washing-up liquid and then an even better rinse under a warm tap.

A potential problem with used reels is that they could be out of true, having been dropped or misused a bit in the past. As long as you have no problem loading a scrap roll of film on to them, they will be fine in that respect too.

For 35mm film, I think it would be best to have a 35mm tank, unless you are happy to use the full 15 US fluid ounces of chemicals. I don't like the sound of inversion in a half-full tank.

 

[Cerebum]

This is not a big problem. Just give them a good wash in washing-up liquid and then an even better rinse under a warm tap.

A potential problem with used reels is that they could be out of true, having been dropped or misused a bit in the past. As long as you have no problem loading a scrap roll of film on to them, they will be fine in that respect too.

For 35mm film, I think it would be best to have a 35mm tank, unless you are happy to use the full 15 US fluid ounces of chemicals. I don't like the sound of inversion in a half-full tank.

Thanks I have a developed test film so can practice to my hearts content it may be the case that I end up buying new but we will see how it goes. Regarding the half full tank, I bought two spools so the loaded one will always be at the bottom. Inversion and volumes split opinions don't they I have read where people fill their tanks, others just cover and everyone swears by their method. I am currently undecided as to how much developer to use. I have developed in half full Paterson tanks before and it will probably be OK but I will study photrio because you guys know more than I ever will

 

[Sirius Glass]

Use hot water and if necessary use a tooth brush on them.

 

[Tim Stapp]

Use hot water and if necessary use a tooth brush on them.

This! I have a number of toothbrushes dedicated for specific cleaning purposes, not all photography or darkroom related.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have read where people fill their tanks, others just cover and everyone swears by their method.

You can make good chemical and practical arguments on both sides. Chemically, you take a risk if you use a diluted developer (D-76 or Xtol weaker than 1+1, for instance) and barely cover the film with 35 mm. In practice, unless you're doing sensitometry or have a far better eye than I do, you're unlikely to ever notice the difference until you get to dilutions like Xtol 1+3 (and, depending on your standards, maybe not then). The manufacturers have a "minimum active developer" amount for most if not all of the currently available developers, but this level is widely ignored by those who aren't OCD and/or don't consider molecular levels of precision more important than their art (or essential to it).

For myself, I don't generally dilute my stock solution developers in favor of replenishment: Xtol (clone) and D-23. I use Parodinal at the recommended dilutions of 1:25 and much more often 1:50 (which latter still puts about 6 ml of concentrate in a tank with a single 35 mm reel with my Paterson equipment; it'd be 5 ml in stainless). The only reason I've seen to use more developer than needed to cover the film is if I had a single stainless 35 mm reel in a tank that would hold three or more -- which (IMO) is a recipe for flow marks and air bells if you use the minimum developer (too much airspace is as bad or worse than too little).

 

[eli griggs]

Make sure you practice getting the reel's film holding tab properly in place.

Few things suck more than having three or four wraps in the reel and the film comes free of it's anchor tab.l and you crush a sharp kink into your photographs.

Have fun.

 

[Cerebum]

You can make good chemical and practical arguments on both sides. Chemically, you take a risk if you use a diluted developer (D-76 or Xtol weaker than 1+1, for instance) and barely cover the film with 35 mm. In practice, unless you're doing sensitometry or have a far better eye than I do, you're unlikely to ever notice the difference until you get to dilutions like Xtol 1+3 (and, depending on your standards, maybe not then). The manufacturers have a "minimum active developer" amount for most if not all of the currently available developers, but this level is widely ignored by those who aren't OCD and/or don't consider molecular levels of precision more important than their art (or essential to it).

For myself, I don't generally dilute my stock solution developers in favor of replenishment: Xtol (clone) and D-23. I use Parodinal at the recommended dilutions of 1:25 and much more often 1:50 (which latter still puts about 6 ml of concentrate in a tank with a single 35 mm reel with my Paterson equipment; it'd be 5 ml in stainless). The only reason I've seen to use more developer than needed to cover the film is if I had a single stainless 35 mm reel in a tank that would hold three or more -- which (IMO) is a recipe for flow marks and air bells if you use the minimum developer (too much airspace is as bad or worse than too little).

Great points, especially on having too much empty tank volume thanks I always stick to a minimum of 6ml developer and go to a bigger tank if I am struggling to achieve this. Developer isn't expensive. I recently bought some FX-39, a more expensive developer than HC110 or Rodinal but it still works out at 60cents for a 250ml dilution at 1:9. I was thinking I can get 20 x 35mm rolls if I stick to 250ml , even in a two spool tank, but then I thought I was risking a film for a saving of pennies, so I bought a one spool tank for my 35mm. Its easy to drop into penny pinching but it is actually reckless in terms of developing. I read that steel tanks are designed around US fluid ounces (8 & 15) and the actual volumes are 237ml and 444ml so I am going to use 240ml and 450ml, thereby ensuring I have both decent coverage and a small amount of sloshing room for the developer. I still need to test how much the temperature of the liquid drops when it is first introduced to the tank. Starting out with plastic was easy but this is much more intricate. There are so many little things to test and check. I am loving it already

 

[Cerebum]

Make sure you practice getting the reel's film holding tab properly in place.

Few things suck more than having three or four wraps in the reel and the film comes free of it's anchor tab.l and you crush a sharp kink into your photographs.

Have fun.

I have been sat in front of the tv , loading and unloading for nearly a week lol

 

[Cerebum]

OK. I have done my tests and am now safely in the K.I.S.S. zone. I brought the tank in from a cold downstairs loo, put in some water that was at 20°c and it didn't even lose half a degree, so that's that sorted. I may still use a cool bath to stand it in when the weather is hot but I don't have to worry about anything. Regarding volume. In a 2 spool tank, 250ml covers a single spool of 35mm very nicely, two spools are covered by 440ml which leaves some agitation sloshing room, and 120 requires 400ml. I now can't wait to finish my test roll of Retro 400s and see how it does in FX-39. I like it in HC110 but hate it in Rodinal. It was decent in ID-11 but I don't like the shelf life and the way it drops off a cliff so I am hoping the Adox FX-39 ii will be a replacement for the Ilford powder.