Developing roll-film without a tank . . .

I was curios how others have accomplished the task of developing roll-films 35mm/120/16mm etc without the aid of a developing tank. I once read where one photographer would clip together the ends of his 120 film and run the loop of film through the developer by hand. That sounds perty simple.
:munch:

DannL. said:

I was curios how others have accomplished the task of developing roll-films 35mm/120/16mm etc without the aid of a developing tank. I once read where one photographer would clip together the ends of his 120 film and run the loop of film through the developer by hand. That sounds perty simple.
:munch:

Click to expand...

...until you try it.

Use trays. Hold the film by both ends, arms apart, and see-saw the film, back and forth, through the developer, stop bath, and fixer.
Washing the film might be a pain in the rear end, though, since you need a fair bit of time to do that.

I started out as a pre-teen developing 616 film without a tank. As I recall, it involved a Kodak Tri-Chem pack.

I didn't clip the ends together though - I used the "see-saw" method.

See this thread where that method is discussed (among other things): (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

It works, but it will test your patience and your ability to maintain your equilibrium in the dark

i've see - saw'ed old ORTHO film through developer stop and fix
then washed them
it was hard enough to do with the red light on, i would be kind of
cranky ( to say the least ) doing that with the lights off

washing wouldn't be too hard, at least 35mm + 120 since
you can cut the film in strips after it is fixed ( at least )
and shuffle / soak+dump the washed film that way to wash &c post-fix.

If you have a reel but lack a tank, it would really make sense to load the reel and just use an open container of sufficient size in the dark.

Larry Clark used to develop dozens of rolls at a time in a big bucket without reels. I've always wanted to try, but am too much of a stickler to do it.

Ugh!

I know it's possible to do the see-saw method, but with the way my films, at least, want to curl up into a snarl, I can't imagine doing it in the dark. Now making a tube out of, say, 2 in diameter plastic pipe capped, filling it with chemical, and lowering the film strip, weighting the end to keep it "straight" and below "water," that I could see, but the amount of developer, etc, would be a constraint. Best get a tank and reels!

With 120 it is easy. It doesn't seem that many years ago since all impecunious photographers did dish development of roll films. Tanks with spirals were for boys with rich fathers. Remove the backing paper. Then just hold the film in a U-shaped loop with one end in one hand and the other end in the other hand with the emulsion side towards you (to prevent the emulsion scraping along the bottom of the dish). Pass the bottom of the loop through a shallow dish of developer raising and lowering each hand in turn like a see-saw while keeping the bottom of the loop under the surface. Making sure the film gets covered on the first few passes is the only tricky part especially since you will be in total darkness and the film may tend to curl rather than form a neat U-shape. Starting with one end under the developer rather than trying to get the middle of the loop under the surface is the best way. In the old days with ortho film the red safelight helped; you could also see the progress of development. When the time is up (no light so an audible time signal or somebody shouting at you from outside the darkroom) move along to a rinse dish and then to fixer. Your arms may ache a bit but it will save on gym membership.

This link shows the method:

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Paterson/Developing_Tanks/Tank_History.html

I last dish developed a film about 15 years ago - a 127 after I forgot my key to the main darkroom and could not find my universal tank.

With a full length of 35 mm film you will need arms like an orang-utang. Two people with the dish on the floor can manage it but before the film gets properly wetted it can curl out of control and form loops all over the place. A third person pulling the loop into the dish can help. But as a routine method for a full length of 35 mm it is not to be recommended.

There even was that idea to sink the complete type 135 cassette into the baths and just agitate by means of twisting the spool in reversing direction.
I guess nobody here would advocate this.

MattKing said:

I started out as a pre-teen developing 616 film without a tank. As I recall, it involved a Kodak Tri-Chem pack.

I didn't clip the ends together though - I used the "see-saw" method.

See this thread where that method is discussed (among other things): (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

It works, but it will test your patience and your ability to maintain your equilibrium in the dark

Click to expand...

Me too. Washed the film in the bath tub.

AgX said:

There even was that idea to sink the complete type 135 cassette into the baths and just agitate by means of twisting the spool in reversing direction.
I guess nobody here would advocate this.

Click to expand...

At one time you could buy a little developing tank to do this. There was a nob on the top to rotate the film in the cassette. It worked with short lengths (10 to 12 exposure) rolls of 35mm.

Bucket developing does sound interesting. I picked up three glass trays today, and I'll give the see-saw method as described a scholarly try. I've no problem using modern tanks, having used them for over thirty years. But, having exited the roll-film scene not too long ago, I figured I'd make a re-entry coming from a completely different direction. Variety is the spice of life. I recently saw a Kodak developing tank, being nothing more than a rectangular wooden box with a lid and crank-handles, and I thought to myself . . . that must have been a big whiz-bang invention for it's day. So what proceeded that, I wondered? I'm sure I'm not the only person that "might" have luddite tendencies. After all . . . still using film.

DannL. said:

I was curios how others have accomplished the task of developing roll-films 35mm/120/16mm etc without the aid of a developing tank. I once read where one photographer would clip together the ends of his 120 film and run the loop of film through the developer by hand. That sounds perty simple.
:munch:

Click to expand...

Perfectly easy to do and if you get a chance, try and watch the Genius of Photography series “Right place right time”. I think it is this one where the war photographer Tony Vaccaro relates how during the war he found some photo chemicals when entering a bombed town and how he then developed his film in a colleague’s helmet on a moonless night by see sawing it through the solution and used his own helmet to contain the fix. He hung the film in a tree to dry overnight and describes seeing the negs in the morning as perfect. Now that’s what I call practical photography.

AgX said:

There even was that idea to sink the complete type 135 cassette into the baths and just agitate by means of twisting the spool in reversing direction.
I guess nobody here would advocate this.

Click to expand...

popular photography had an article on this method once decades ago. It works if you are using a monobath since, in theory, the inevitable uneavenness of getting film in contact with the chemical is counteracted by the monobath's pretty much automatic action of developing and fixing at the same time.

But I wouldn't want to try it.

Steve Anchell describes in-cassette processing of 35mm film inThe Darkroom Cookbook. The ideal situation would be to do this with a monobath, but one gets the sense that he's proposing this more of an exercise to prove that it can be done than as a practical approach to processing film.

If all the developing reels disappeared overnight I'd go back to a deep tank line. This was the mainstay for high throughput black and white processing for decades.

I picked up a Leitz Valoy enlarger the other day and thought I would search the web for possible accessories. Then I ran across this interesting device.

Referring to the glass cylinder developing contraption at the top of the page.

You might rig something like this see-saw developing tray with hold down bar. It also has a photo of see-saw developing in a plain tray.

http://www.lungov.com/wagner/c/077c.html

I learned to use the see-saw method in the 1930's, and developed many rolls this way.
Another method takes advantage of the film's natural ability to curl. In a tray lay the rolled up film.Hold the roll loosely to keep it under control then with the other hand pull the film out straight and then allow it to re-roll. Repeat.
An alternate to this is to pull the end across the tray and let it roll up, pull some more and let it roll up. When all of the roll has moved from one hand to the other, reverse the direction. Repeat.

And to add . . . Dead Link Removed is a picture of that cylinder contraption as a kit. Now, I can visualize how it might be used. I think cine film was also developed on large "water-wheel" type devices at one time.

That FIMAN Devise rather seems to be intended for use with sheet film.

AgX said:

That FIMAN Devise rather seems to be intended for use with sheet film.

Click to expand...

Granted, I agree that it could be used for sheet film just a well. I could be wrong, but here is what I "visualised" . . . . Note that the tray is fairly short. Wrap the film ie; 35mm around the outside of the glass cylinder with the emulsion out. Use the two clips provided to clip the ends to the cylinder. Place the contraption over the tray filled with chemistry. Crank away.

I also see that Leica introduced some of their first cameras and small-format enlargers around about 1925.

Update . . . I found a Leica catalog online that shows the strips of 35mm film wrapped around the outside of the glass cylinder. Can be seen here by those who can access Google Books.

Dead Link Removed

My better-half caught a glimpse of my three new glass trays. Now I'm back to square one. Urrrrrr.

I totally agree. I seemingly was suffering from a lack of imagination...

AgX said:

I totally agree. I seemingly was suffering from a lack of imagination...

Click to expand...

Now that's funny. With my over-active imagination, and your lack of, we could tackle just about anything.