Double-loading dev tank reels

[cjng]

I've read that a famous photographer often turned his 4-reel developing tank (for 35mm film) into an 8-reel tank by double-loading each reel. He would put 2 strips of film together, emulsion sides facing out, then wind them onto a single reel. I have a bunch of Tri-X (36-exposure rolls) to develop, and only a single 2-reel tank in which to process them. So, I'm thinking that this double-loading method could save a lot of time.

My question is, should I change the amount of stock rodinal I normally put in the tank, or would the normal amount be enough? I usually make a working solution of 1:25 and develop for 10 minutes. My tank is one of the small stainless steel types, and it holds just under 500ml when loaded with 2 36-exposure rolls. Obviously I can't put more working solution into the tank, so the only option would be to increase the concentration. Would I have the change my development time too?

Thanks much!

-Clif

 

[Dave Miller]

I doubt that you would have any problems, other than the loading the films.
80ml of Rodinal diluted at 1:50 will develop four sheets of 4x5 or one 8 x 10 film.
I guess you should work out the area of film and check that against the normal recommendations.

 

[Monophoto]

This is an old newspaper photographer's trick - I've used it many times when I wanted to process a bunch of film quickly or when I had to stretch my developing solutions.

Obviously, the most challenging bit is getting the film onto the reels - you need to be very practices in loading whatever style reel you use. I use center-loading reels (stainless, or some older Durst plastic reels), and the trick is to carefully trim the ends of the films square, and then clip off the corners so that they slip easily into the clip at the center of the reel. I find that it is much easier to do this by winding the film back into the cassette, but leaving a pigtail out so that I can trim with the lights on. Put the films back to back (emulsion side out), and then insert them into the reel and gently feed the film onto the spiral. The key, of course, is to be gentle in how you cup the film and guide it onto the reel.

As to the chemistry, you need to check the capacity of your developer. I'm not practiced enough with Rodinal to know how much you will need - keep in mind that one 36 exposure roll of 35mm film is about the same as four 4c5 sheets, or one 8x10 sheet.

However, my experience is that developers are rarely exhausted completely after developing one batch of film. Sure, there is some exhaustion, and that would be evident if you tried to process a second batch of film in the same developer (ie, doing the two batches serially) - the first batch would be fine, but the second batch would be underdeveloped unless you extend the development time.

But if instead of processing two rolls serially, you process both rolls at the same time, the developer will be much closer to complete exhaustion after that batch is done. But the amount of underdevelopment that the two rolls will experience due to exhaustion will be much less than would be the case on the second of two rolls developed serially.

Old-school newspaper photographers tended to overdevelop their film a bit, so they probably didn't notice the slight underdevelopment caused by this process. For folks who calibrate development to yield optimal negative contrast, it may be desirable to come up with a new calibration for tandem development.

 

[Flotsam]

Wouldn't you have to worry about the fixer getting between the two pressed together backs of the rolls to clear the films?

 

[Monophoto]

Wouldn't you have to worry about the fixer getting between the two pressed together backs of the rolls to clear the films?

With 35mm, there is nothing on the back that requires that chemicals be able to flow freely between the two strips of film.

That said, chemicals will get between the strips, and one of the worries I have aways had about the process is making sure that the chemicals are completely removed from the back. Hence, I've always taken the additional step of rinsing each strip of film separately to make sure that there is no residual on the back.

 

[Gerald Koch]

I have heard this done with 120 reels where the separation between turns is much greater than for 35mm reels. With 35mm you risk ruining some frames if any portion of one film touches the other. Why take the risk?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I used to do this All the time, at least 1-2 years weekly at a newspaper. With Tri-X and Tmax. Three 4 reel tanks, each double rolled. Allowed me to get thru a lot of film very quickly. I was taught this by another press photographer, but with a few extra tricks. One is that I used to staple the ends together, back to back of course, keeping the rolls inside the cassette and then rolling them out together, using a good Hewes reel. Process usually in D-76 straight or Tmax 1:4, strong agitation for first 30-45 sec and very strong agitation each minute. We used a strong bath of Kodak Indicator Stop in a separate tub, dunking each can of film fast into the stop with strong agitation, with the film put on a spindle. Fix was also in a tub, tossing each spindle of rolls into the tub and agitation each min. Wash was the trick, I used to separate the rolls at this point so that each roll got its own reel, which means I needed a lot of empty reels at this point (not a problem at the paper). My error rate was pretty low at first until I figured out the tricks and then the error rate dropped to nearly nil. Now I don't do it anymore, I think my now usual Xtol would not handle the extra rolls, and back then I was more concerned with speed rather than those 'arty' things like tonality or grain.:rolleyes:

 

[cjng]

Wow, thanks for all the useful tips, folks. I couldn't find any data from Photographer's Formulary about how much stock solution to use to process a given area of film. However, since my normal working solution of 1:25 is double their highest suggested concentration (1:50), I think I'll try a batch using my regular method. I will rinse the two strips separately, though, to get rid of any residual fixer. Thanks a lot, everyone!

 

[Black Dog]

Barry Thornton mentions this trick with 120 films in Elements (sadly out of print but yo might track down a copy on Amazon, Alibris etc).

 

[Gerald Koch]

I read so many things on APUG which amount to nothing more than being "penny wise and pound foolish." People often try to cut corners in order to save time or money and wind up saving neither. If your film is valuable then treat it properly.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Yeah, but the time I was doing it Speed was way more important than quality. Using a decently strong developer, I could do a large amount of film quickly, but the grain was up and shadow detail was thinner. Now, I totally would never consider doing it, quality being more important than speed. I'm just saying that its possible to do that technique and have it work ok for that need.

 

[Ray Heath]

g'day cj,
why risk it

sure Eugene Smith, and others, did it successfully, after much practice and experience, but you aint him

if you ruin one frame on one film you've saved nothing

 

[cjng]

Hello again, just wanted to clear up some of the context for my original question. I have very little time to pursue photography, and double-loading tank reels seems like a way to save time. I've gotten a lot less twitchy with the shutter release, so if I continue to process my film with my current method, I can probably keep up with what I'm shooting now (i.e. 1 roll every 3 weeks).

However, the exsisting backlog would, in all likelihood, never be touched in the foreseeable future. The Tri-X has already been in and out of several different freezers for 3-4 months, during which time it also went through an airport x-ray machine by mistake. Then I'll be moving again in a year. All my locations have been in areas that get lots of high humidity.

My film is valuable to me, yes, but would double-loading be any riskier than the scenario mentioned above? Does shuffling it from freezer to luggage to airport to a different freezer still qualify as proper treatment of film?

 

[Monophoto]

The latent image keeping properties of film is a mystery. I've seen articles that tallk around the subject, but I don't believe that there has ever been any comprehensive testing, and my gut tells me that it is likely to vary between films, and also likely between vintages of the same emulsion.

Wine and cheese get better with age. Exposed film does not. Process the stuff! That's the only sure way to freeze the aging process.

 

[Ray Heath]

both scenarios are too risky

get a tank, chemicals, changing bag and process the film wherever you are, the rest is just excuses

 

[arigram]

Jobo reels are made to be double-loaded.
They have this red pin in the middle that gets pushed it when you have the first film loaded. It prevents the second roll from going any further. I always load 120 rolls, the first with the sticky tape at the end and the second at the beginning to reinforce my piece of mind.

 

[fhovie]

I have one of those long Jobo Extenders for my 2500 series tank and can do 8 rolls of 120 at a time or 18 4x5 sheets. One thing I learned early was that aggitation of 500 ml of developer is different than 3 liters of developer. With the small tank, aggitation could be very vigerous. With the large tank aggitaiton is very slow and careful due to the mass of the fluid causing uneven development along the edges of the film. It was worse with FP4 and TRI-X was more tolerant but noticable none the less. I still do large batches. I have never needed to do more than 8 rolls at a time - usually I have 8 shot at one ASA and 8 more at another speed - Most developers can do 1 8x10(one roll) per 500 ml. I have no trouble with 8 rolls in 3 liters of developer with Mytol at 1:3 or P'cat at 1:1:150.

 

[haris]

Jobo reels are made to be double-loaded.
They have this red pin in the middle that gets pushed it when you have the first film loaded. It prevents the second roll from going any further. I always load 120 rolls, the first with the sticky tape at the end and the second at the beginning to reinforce my piece of mind.

This month I twice did that, that is two times loaded in Jobo reel two 120 films, separated by red separator. Both times I got two last frames on one film not developed properly. Second film was OK. Since I use RB67, of 40 frames I got 4 frames unusable, that is not properly developed.

Next time I will spend another day for separately developing films (each time only one film in reel, and only one reel in tank), rather than risk to ruin shots.

I dont know why this happens, it seems that in my reels film which is loaded after red separator (second film) is not properly loaded. Or I just need little practice...

 

[Trask]

In the book "Darkroom", Gene Smith talks about loading his reels that way. He also reminisces about developing and printing his Minamata photos in a terribly cold room, with ashes from a wood fire blowing around. What a guy, and what a photographer!

 

[arigram]

This month I twice did that, that is two times loaded in Jobo reel two 120 films, separated by red separator. Both times I got two last frames on one film not developed properly.

Have I had trouble with them?
Sure. I have had the two rolls overlapping each other as somehow the second one slipped in through the "protection". Maybe I pushed too hard, maybe the first was not in enough, I cannot tell.
It has only happened twice after many dozens of rolls that I've had through my new Jobo procesor.

 

[Gerald Koch]

In the book "Darkroom", Gene Smith talks about loading his reels that way. He also reminisces about developing and printing his Minamata photos in a terribly cold room, with ashes from a wood fire blowing around.

Yes, one must suffer for one's art. It also helps to starve in a garret