Dip&dunk w/hangers or tray development

While at a workshop recently I asked for hangers and tanks to process my 4x5. Not only did my request never materialize but I think I committed a serious faux pas.
Why is tray development and its resultant scratches preferred to hangers and tanks?
Charlie Murray

I've used both as well as the Nikor daylight tank.

Tanks for hangers require a lot of solution, so they tend to work best with replenishable or reusable developers and high volume processing. When you've got a lot of film to process, they are very convenient.

Tray development doesn't necessarily produce scratches, once you have the technique.

I use trays for 8x10" and 11x14", because I don't have tanks that large or room for them. If it's just one or two sheets, I might use a print drum. For 4x5" I usually use the Nikor tank, but occasionally trays or hangers. For 5x7" I like the hangers, but I'll use trays if it's just a few sheets. I tend most toward the hanger method if I've got a mixed batch of 5x7" and 4x5" all going in the same developer.

I'm a dip and dunk developer for all, 35mm, 120, 4x5 and 8x10. Have done the tray thing and it works fine but I really prefer the tanks. As David said though it is best for high volume processing so I save my film till I can justify it. For 4up 4x5 there are tanks out there that are 1/3 the width which hold 5 4up racks or 5 8x10 racks. They work fine when I'm doing small volumes of sheet but I still prefer the 3 1/2 gallon tanks. Lately I've been doing a lot of inter pos and inter negs and the thinner tanks are really conveniant for that They hold 1 gallon + chemestry..

Dear Charlie,

I prefer hangers to trays as well. If someone else doesn't like it that's their problem.<g>

Neal Wydra

charlie -

i learned large format developing using a large tank and hangers, and continued for about 7 years until i ran into problems with some of my hangers. i had a bad two or three in the batch, and they caused me a lot of grief.


i process in trays now, but wish i had enough room for a tank line. i really miss the whole ritual of processing in tanks, besides i have been wanting to use "777" for about 3 years --- it is easier to have it in a tank, than pouring it in a tray, and then funnelling it back into a bottle. i am so much of a clutz i would dump a bunch of it every time i try to pour it back into the bottle!

john

I have used a daylight tank (maybe Yankee, can't remember,) and then switched to tray development. The daylight tank was problematic due to solution surge that caused uneven development in many cases. I had to remove the lid and use a dip-n-dunk agitation routine, thus losing the "daylight" capability.

I never did get the tray method down to my satisfaction; not bad, but the occasional scratch that drove me nuts. I'm not processing sheet film right now (no darkroom facility) but when I get back to it, I've collected some Kodak 4x5 hangers and will use small tanks. I will use Rodinal or another high dilution developer such as HC-110, so one-shot mixing isn't really a problem.

Method is just method, and if something works well, those who look down there nose at it ... well, that's THEIR problem!

Earl

I use the dip and dunk method. I prefer it to trays mainly because of the potentiial scratch I would get. The one problem I have with the this method is over development of the edges if I agitate to hard. This doesn't happen often anymore, I seem to have gotten more patient as I get older.

If you think about uneven development, there is no such thing as surge marks or increased density on edges. There is only one thing that goes wrong with agitation and that is the ENTIRE surface of the film is not cleaned of spent developer. If you have increased density, that is the area that was replenished with each agitation and the less dense areas received incomplete or no replenishment. You can not over replenish developer to an area, only under replenish to others.

Now that means not filling inversion tanks to the top so the developer has space to move. All you need to do have enough to cover the film when it is at rest. Lots of people use two reel tanks with one reel full on the bottom and one empty on top and only enough liquid to cover the bottom reel. Hangars work and the film is pulled completely out of the developer. Therefore the entire sheet is replenished. Same with a machine rotation such as a Jobo.

Gordon Hutchings in his book of pyro reccommends one 4x5 sheet in a 8x10 tray and maximum side lifts for as vigorous an agitation as possible. Well it works with PMK and also with other developers. The sheet of film twists and turns and moves randomly.

Many try agitating with the twirl stick and they get increased density on the edges. Why? Because the film in the center does not get developer replenished. This method will work in a deep tank, but you must raise the film reel with a lift rod and put it back down as you are twisting. Even development results.

Marks are from incomplete agitation period.

My current methods of sheet film development:
1. Slosher Trays
2. BZT type tubes

I use one-shot chemistry with both methods.

Both methods work equally well and produce uniformly developed and undamaged negatives.

I agree with Ronald, if you are using a Yankee or other daylight tank for sheet film you must fill it the top, with hangers you need to lift the hanger or hangers out of the developer (for that matter fixer as well) let the developer drain from the film and then dunk back into the developer. I have not had much luck with the Yankee daylight tank, I use trays or tanks when I have just a roll or a couple of sheets. My preference is to dunk in a deep tank with D 76, DK 50 (clone), or Microdol X all with replenisher. I just ordered some Harvey's 777 for my deep tanks, I want to see if I can replace all of my usual developers with just 777 with continues replenishment.

Nice to see another New Mexican joining the discussion.

Whatever you call the uneven development resulting from [my] use of the Yankee tank in daylight mode, its design is not very good, IMO. As Ronald indicates, dip-n-dunk solved the problem.

Earl