Developing 1 sheet of film

[timbo10ca]

I have always wondered how tray processing can affect the degree to which my negs are developed depending on how many are being done at one time. More negs would mean each one is in fresh devloper less frequently, and is moving though more slowly- thus slower aggitation, thus less contrast or requiring more development time.

I'm wondering how people develop only 1 or 2 sheets of film when they've tested for development times using more sheets, or how you would compensate for development when you're doing multiple negs all for different times (i.e. adding them to the developer as you go).

When you have only 1 or 2 negs in the tray, do you have to really slow down the rotation to account for the fact that in a stack of 5 or 6 sheets, a single sheet will not be sitting as long in fresh developer? Also, the developer would stay fresh and more active longer when there is only 1 neg in it, vs a stack.

Should the rate at which this is done be changed depending on the number of negs I'm doing (not easy to control for), or different times tested for with different number of negs being rotated through at a constant rate. I figure this is important, because there's "continuous agitation" in a large stack of negs, then there's "vigourous aggitation" in a stack of say 2 or 3 if rotation rate remains constant. When I rotate through the stack, I slowly move the neg, push the stack under, pause, then repeat. If a person is taking the time to test their system, should this not be accounted for, or is this going too far? So far if I've had just 1 neg to do, I throw in 5 other previously developed negs to compensate for rotation time/ aggitation, but not developer exhaustion. Is this something I need to continue?

Thanks,
Tim

 

[jmcd]

I cycle through a stack in 30 seconds. If I have two sheets, I will move them just as if I had eight. I begin moving sheets again when the clock has counted 30 seconds from the beginning of the past cycle. So with three sheets I might be resting for more than 20 seconds in a cycle; with eight I might be moving continuously. But each sheet moves the same amount and speed, with the same random movement in the same size tray—and length of rest is also roughly the same.

With one sheet, I would keep it corralled face down in the corner of the tray until it is time to move it, just as if it were in a stack. Rotate to keep movement random according to your practice.
I use plenty of developer to account for the number of sheets being developed.

 

[photobackpacker]

At a John Sexton seminar, I learned to use ballast sheets to standardize to load on the developer. A fully-exposed ballast sheet puts the same load on a batch of developer as 2 average (image) sheets. I have found this simple approach helps to remove one more variable in the development process.

 

[timbo10ca]

At a John Sexton seminar, I learned to use ballast sheets to standardize to load on the developer. A fully-exposed ballast sheet puts the same load on a batch of developer as 2 average (image) sheets. I have found this simple approach helps to remove one more variable in the development process.

When you say fully exposed ballast sheet, do you mean you expose it maximally (e.g. pull out the darkslide and expose it to light), develop it, and re-use to make up a stack? This previously developed sheet puts a load on the developer, regardless of how many times you put it through?

 

[dmax]

I think that Photobackpacker meant by ballast sheet is a sheet that is fully exposed but not developed. Once used as ballast, you throw away that sheet and use another one (or more, depending) for the next set of negs that you intend to process. The purpose of the ballast sheet(s) is to help even out potential development variances due to processing less-than-optimal number of negatives. In effect, it takes the place of "regularly-exposed" negatives that are not present in your processing stack.

 

[photobackpacker]

That is correct. Now there is something useful for the film that you inadvertantly ruined or allowed to go past date. John Sexton's approach was to determine the amount of developer needed and then exceed it so that developer depletion would not enter the picture if you were developing exceptionally dense negatives. (Like pictures of snow geese on snow in bright sun.)

Then, standardize the development load through the use of the ballast sheets.

 

[juan]

Over the years, I've found that developing one sheet in fresh developer each time is most consistent. It takes a long time, but for me, it's worth it.
juan

 

[gbenaim]

From my experience, you're more likely to get uneven development if you develop one or two sheets at a time. What I do in those situations is keep a couple of throwaway sheets habdy, and use them to shuffle with, but in my case this is developed film. I develop by inspection, so I always check degree of development before going into the fixer. Check out Michael Smith's article and posts on this technique, as well as on developing by shuffle.

 

[Mark Fisher]

Or, you can use individual tubes like BTZS tubes.....that is what I am using now. It seems like I always end up with a few +2 or -2 outliers and this makes it pretty easy to deal with without spending any more time......plus it is really consistant

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I've been trying to get my development consistent, and been measuring density ranges with a scanner as a reference. What you say is probably true, but I'm comming to the view point that there are so many other variables out there in the scene that this one is perhaps not the most significant.

My printing is only contact printing or scanned and printed as I don't own an enlarger.

Rather than issues in density created by multiple sheet (in tray) development I have had more issues with marks on emulsion especially when using soft emulsions like ADOX (grumble). Consequentially I have a turn around point of 2 sheets for tray development at the moment, and now only tank multiple or single sheet (less than 3). I'm increasingly reluctant to get chemistry on my fingers (metol seems to be bothering me now) and since I don't like shuffle stack processing in tray with gloves I'm more inclined to use trays for single only.

This one is from what I call a "typical" 4x5 sheet neg, it scans and or contact prints nicely without much hassle at all

Dead Link Removed

this one (as it happens) was single processed while this one

Dead Link Removed

was shuffle processed

 

[gbenaim]

Pellicle,

My experience is with 8x10 film, but most of it carries over to 4x5. I used to get scratches now and then , but now almost never get them. I usually develop a stack of 8-10 sheets in 3 liters of solution in an 11x14 tray, place the stack perpendicular to the tray, so that I can keep it straight at all times. That last part really is the key, plus doing several sheets (more than 3-4) at a time. I even use dummy sheets (as mentioned above) to get a thicker stack, as this makes it easier to handle and avoids scratches. Give it a shot w some test negs and see what you think. For 4x5 I'd use 5x7 trays, lay them horizontally, and stack the negs vertically (as seen from the top), like a cross. I.e. w 4x5, the 4in side of the neg along the 7in side of the tray. Let me know how you fare.

 

[pellicle]

gbenaim

I'll see how I go with gloves next time (as I prefer tray for black and white). Like I mentioned (I think?) I used to do that method all the time (no more than 6 sheets) when I worked with my fingers in the developer. I no longer seem to be able to tolerate this (with my fingers feeling chemical burnt after small exposures). While I like gloves for their protection, I really didn't like using nitrile gloves for their lack of feel and well ... I don't want to get developer on my hands anymore.

 

[JBrunner]

Or, you can use individual tubes like BTZS tubes.....that is what I am using now. It seems like I always end up with a few +2 or -2 outliers and this makes it pretty easy to deal with without spending any more time......plus it is really consistant

I'd second this approach for single sheet development. Another upside is that the portion of chemical used can be smaller, so you aren't blowing a bunch of developer on one sheet.

 

[gbenaim]

Pellicle,

I always use nitrile gloves, never put my bare hands in chemicals. If you're getting a reaction, definitely stop! Use the gloves, practice with the lights on, use a small tray, it's very doable. Feel free to ask me any question as you go along. Also, take a look at development by inspection, it's a great tool to have.

gb

 

[noseoil]

Tubes

 

[alecj]

Here's another solution. Cibachrome once offered a trial kit of its product, using 10 4x5 sheets, chemicals, filters and a small one-sheet tank to make those prints. I've got one and it is perfect for 1-shot 4x5 processing. It looks like a shrunken 8x10 processing tank. I like the fact I can keep my hands out of the chemicals. Look for them - I see them from time to time.