Difference on developing large and middle format in tanks.

[marciofs]

So I have being developing my 35mm and 120 film negatives in Peterson tanks with success. But I it seems harders the get the same result I used to get when developing 4x5in negative sheet.

My question is if we can developing large format as we develop 120 and 35mm to get the same result? Or it should be some change on developing time or agitation?

Perhaps my developer got aged or contaminated, or maybe it is because I am shooting large format pinhole. But since the massive dev. Chart shows developing time for 35mm and 120 (which are always the same by the way) and not for large format... i wonder.

 

[gzinsel]

well, I will take stab here! In my tank, it holds 2 @120 or 4 @135 per liter of developer One roll of 135 @36exp. contacts on 1 10x8. 80square inches. same as one roll of 120. SO . . . . 4 rolls of 135 fit But the developer is working on 320 sq. inches, 120 @ 160 sq. inches. And for sheet film in a vertical tank dev. 4 sheets of 4x5 per 1 liter (1@ 80 sq. inches). The developer is being stretched the furthest in 135 and somewhat stretched in 120 and hardly stretched in 4x5. so go figure.

 

[Rick A]

I develop 4x5 film in an Arista plastic two reel tank, taco style same as 35mm and 120 film, no difference in outcome.

 

[removed account4]

development times are a suggested starting point ... sometimes it takes longer sometimes less time.
i used to process rolls of film on a deep tank, the same tank as my sheet film ( that would have been
processed in hangers ) .. and sheets and rolls took the same amount of time ...
continuous shuffling of sheet film in trays might take the same time as a rotary processor ...
sorry marcoifs, im not much help ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have used tanks for 35mm and 120. I tried trays for 4"x5" and was not happy about the results. I checked out several 4"x5" tanks including the Yankee tank and I was not happy with the uneven development. I was directed towards using the Jobo 3010 Expert Tank on a CPP2 Jobo processor and I have been very happy with the results. I will stick with that.

 

[gzinsel]

BTW, I have built a 4x5 vertical tank developing apparatus for my sheet film. It holds 4x5 for 1 liter of developer. I have adjusted times to meet my criteria. BTW. those times are different for 135 and still different for 120 "in a can" developer! sheet film is sheet film, roll film is roll film. ROLL WITH PUNCHES is my advice. all things are not equal. much to my ( and others) chagrin. unfortunately you can not set it and forget it!

AS to the OP, it still may be true that your developer is not what it appears to be, ( in good health) . Make sure your chemistry is top-notch ( no screwin' around with garbage) Also, Pinhole- if reciprocity failure is not accounted for, then you may suffer from "under=exposure". I would try FIRST. using reg. film, in reg situations, comparing them (135,120,sheet film) making careful notes. make those adjustments, verify ( re-shoot) nail THAT, THEN.. . . . move on to something like pinhole, ( i.e.is your pinhole exactly the f-stop you think it is?, larger or smaller) that will effect duration of exposure i.e. C.I. Also L>F> pinhole make sure you including Bellows factor!!!!!! and EVERYTHING ELSE. while you are at it. Clean out the darkroom. ITS only good Karma!!!!! Also if you are having problems? look towards things that you need to recenter yourself spiritually too. this effects and affects Everything!! I always ADD more Phen shwey!!! although I probably spelled it wrong. Good Luck. May the Schwartz be with you.

 

[rexp2]

I generally use the same development times and agitation cycle count for roll films and sheet films of the same type. However, I have found that as the film gets larger, achieving even development becomes more of a challenge with small tanks/trays. For example, 2.25x3.25 developed in a tank similar to the Yankee has worked well with HC110 B. However, 4x5 in the same tank had reduced development near the edges. Similarly, developing 8x10 in an 8x10 tray (not recommended by the books) also has uneven development issues. For 8x10 in a small tray, I have found that tray tipping agitation fore and aft must be combined with side to side on each cycle. If the side to side is skipped, then the edges again experience less development. Thinking about the flow of developer over the negative, the sides of the tray/tank have an restraining influence on flow over the film. This impacts maintaining homogeneity in the developer composition contacting the print and removal of development byproducts. For even development it is important that the entire surface of the negative sees the same chemical environment. For 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10, I prefer to use film holders in vertical tanks. Agitation is preformed by lifting the rack of film holders almost out of the tank and tilting to one side or the other on alternate agitation cycles.

 

[marciofs]

Thank you for all the advices. I will try once more with an other developer before throuh away the developer I have being using.

About the uneven result. I didn't notice it yet maybe because I haven't developed many sheets yet. But I was thinking if I use a longer tank (instead developing by taking the rack of filme holders out of the tank and turning it) in order to make sure the developer will flow on all it surface equaly during agitation. But this is something for later on if I notice uneven result.

 

[gone]

Sometimes when things go wrong and you're not sure what's happening, it's good to go back to basics. Shoot some fresh Tri-X, develop it in fresh D76, and follow Kodak's recommendations for temps, times, and agitations. If that doesn't work, it's something else. Chances are, assuming your exposures are right, you'll get good results. And I agree, it may be a problem related to the pinhole lens and uneven exposure, so try things w/ a real 4x5 lens if you have one.

 

[Simonh82]

What is the actual problem you are experiencing with the large format negatives? The 35mm/120 times should be a good starting point. Are you comparing pinhole negatives to negatives shot in a normal camera? The obvious difference would be low contrast and soft focus but I'm guessing you are expecting these. Extending development times might help boost the contrast somewhat.

 

[marciofs]

What is the actual problem you are experiencing with the large format negatives? The 35mm/120 times should be a good starting point. Are you comparing pinhole negatives to negatives shot in a normal camera? The obvious difference would be low contrast and soft focus but I'm guessing you are expecting these. Extending development times might help boost the contrast somewhat.

I am getting high contrast and over exposure/development look. But and am almost convinced that is the old developer I am using.

 

[Simonh82]

I would be surprised if old developer lead to over development and high contrast, I would have thought underdevelopment would have been more likely if the activity of the developer had reduced. I've heard some people say that D76 can build contrast as it ages and lots of others completely refute this.

Are you confident of you exposure calculations with your pinhole camera? Could you be over exposing the film in the camera?

 

[Rick A]

I would think your issues lie with exposure in a pin hole camera, not in development. If it was an issue with old developer you would have weak development. If you are over exposing, you need to pull back on development. You will have to do some testing to find the exposure/development that works to achieve the final outcome you desire.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Massive developing chart does provide LF developing info with 135 and 120 formats.
It is called sheet. Here is example I used one week ago.
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Developer=&Film=FP4&mdc=Search

And, yes, I use my 135, 120 tank to develope single 4x5. No problems.

 

[marciofs]

I developed these today with Rodinal.

I sacned the negative and converted it on positive on photoshop. Noting else.

Does it look good?
I don't know if it is because I was used to scan 120 and 35mm with "film negative mode", and now because of the size of the negative I can only scan as it were positive, but I am not used to see this kind brightness result.

I will make contact print of them tomorrow.



I also agitated different this time. Instead of making half turn I turned the tank upside down on each agitation. But I guess the impact of the developer on the negative, pressing it towards the negative holder, left those marks near the border of the image.

And for the seccond time I got this bright spot in the image, like on the button image. It wasn't the sun because it was a dark cloud day.



But it looks better.