First time developing 120

The AP plastic tank from freestyle has worked perfectly for me. And the reels work for 127 as well as 120 and 35mm. Couldn't be easier.

My only complaint is the plastic tanks require a lot more chems than the little stainless ones. I have not yet managed to load a stainless reel successfully.

I should add that by taking the two plastic reels apart and glueing them back-to-back I was able to make one to develop some old found 616 film from the 50's. I have not seen 70mm stainless reels anywhere (nor 127).

As to stainless tanks/reels - it's the route i chose and there is a bit of a 'practicing curve' to get the hang of it.... However, i have the Hewes 120 reel and once i actually get the film clipped in straight (kinda hard to see inside the bag!!), the film just slides in place as i roll the reel - it's soooo easy. I also have a couple 35mm no-name-brand SS reels and they seem *much* more tricky than the Hewes 120....

Also, i sure wish i had the spare $ for one of those changing tents at Adorama. My hands get a little on the sweaty side as i fiddle about loading the film - the tent would allow more 'room' for everything to breathe...

chazz said:

I believe I have figured out what is causing the problem with the Rondinax 60. I'm not sure, but I think it's worth one more try. If it doesn't work I'm gonna send for a Hewes reel and an Arista tank from Freestyle. Thanks again for the comments and the support.

Click to expand...

Chazz, I have two Loadomat60(predecessor to the Rondinax tank and exactly the same) daylight tanks and the work just fine. Leitz had a 35mm version as did Agfa, so you know they must work. I think scratches might come from the insert film guide (the removable red colored thingy the film starts in) You could take some 600 grit wet/dry paper and smooth this area out and I bet the scratches will be gone. I don't use my tanks very much, but they do serve a special purpose for me. I have a full operating darkroom at home, but I also have a cottage in the far north of Michigan with no darkroom and that's where my Loadomat tanks are at. That said, I do 99.99% of my processing back home in my darkroom since it's much nicer and easier. After reading over all these post I will give my two cents. First, the Rondinax tank is do-able,but in my opinion not the best. Second, the best advice given here is what Nick and others have said about Hewes reels. For years I used different SS reels and got by, but would occasionally have crescent marks and film touching problems. They usually came when I was in a hurry and as you can guess are irreversible. Being a little "Dutch" prevented me from buying the Hewes reels as my thinking went "they look just like my Nikkor reels, but cost way tooooo much". Well, I finally broke down and bought a 35mm Hewes reel on the "bay" and tried it. I couldn't wait to get out of the darkroom and onto my PC to order another 35mm Hewes and two 120 Hewes reels. Yes, they are that good! The difference between night and day. The only trick with the Hewes is tabbing the film in the center of the reel. I put it(the film end) under the tab and then slide in sideways(back and forth) until I feel it being centered as close as possible. I then try to load and if it doesn't go on like butter it isn't centered. So, I back off a little and re-center. This all takes just a few seconds and is no real hassle. Hewes reels are some of, if not the best, money I have ever spent in my darkroom. I know(from experience) that Hewes reels look just like all the rest, but that just ain't so. JohnW

I have a couple of the load-o-mats and a couple of the 120 Rondinax units as well. The design is identical, but the construction material is different.

The Bakelite construction of the Load-O-Mat is superior to the polymer thermoset material of the Rondinax. I don't use them "regularly" like they were designed to be used, but I did fool around with them enough to know that 1) They work and could be your only tank if necessary, and 2) The Bakelite was a better material than the polymer. It just turned smoother and loaded better every time.

Life would be adequate faced with a future of nothing more than a zone focus Bessa, APX, Rodinol, and one of these tanks. If I got to choose I would choose the Bakelite Load-O-Mat 20.

MB

chazz said:

I did have some trouble with the 60 at the point where you pull the paper which in turn loads the film into the film chamber inside.
...
It started an accordion roll instead of loading the last three frames, which would be the first three frames on the roll. I lost those three frames.........but the others seem to be perfectly fine. ...
Has anyone else used the Rondinax 60 and had this same problem with the film not loading properly?

Click to expand...

Chazz,

Been there. Let me explain, and then offer a solution that others may cringe at.

But first let me offer that a SS or a Patterson style tank isn't a bad investment.

The 35mm Rondinax merely feeds film onto the developing spool and the knife blade cuts it to disconnect it from the factory cassette. Nothing ever sticks to cause the accordion problem like the 120 tank.

You can see that with the 120 processor the film spools into the little receiver compartment when you are pulling the backing paper out. This is the step where you have trouble, and this is the step that I meant where I noted in my previous post that Bakelite was a superior material to polymer.

What happens with the polymer, and doesn't happen with Bakelite, is that the very flat back of the film becomes electrostaticly attracted to the very flat polymer receiving chamber. And since they're both so flat they present a *LOT* of surface area to stick together. And modern film is thin and crumples.

First, technique is important. If you can pull the film smoothly so it doesn't stop it is less likely to get stuck. But don't pull too fast either. This one of those, "Man you're just gonna have to practice it yourself" things.

Second, knock down the very slick mirror like finish on the inside of the receiving chamber. You absolutely do not want it to be rough and scratch the film. But if you can take a piece of 600 grit sand paper (this is where others may cringe) and gently scour the inside of the chamber it will have less contact area with the film as you're pulling the backing paper. Just make sure that it is smooth to the touch with no sharp point.

The best surface "feel" you could get would be about like the inside of a piece of CPVC pipe.

Now, having said all that, let me reiterate that either SS or Patterson style tanks aren't a bad investment.

Michael

I've never used plastic reels, but IMHO in stainless, 120 is easier to load cleanly than 35mm. The spacing is wider, so it's easier to feel if something is wrong, and you don't have to back up as far to fix it.

In switching from an el-cheapo no-name 120 reel to Hewes, I didn't experience huge changes in loading ease, *except* with Tri-X. I'm not sure if the strip is minutely wider than the other films I work with, or if there's something slightly different about the way the base flexes when handled, or what, but my batting average on loading Tri-X on the cheap reel was well below the Mendoza line. I don't think I've ever had a loading glitch with the Hewes reel.

-NT

michaelbsc said:

Chazz,

Been there. Let me explain, and then offer a solution that others may cringe at.

But first let me offer that a SS or a Patterson style tank isn't a bad investment.

The 35mm Rondinax merely feeds film onto the developing spool and the knife blade cuts it to disconnect it from the factory cassette. Nothing ever sticks to cause the accordion problem like the 120 tank.

You can see that with the 120 processor the film spools into the little receiver compartment when you are pulling the backing paper out. This is the step where you have trouble, and this is the step that I meant where I noted in my previous post that Bakelite was a superior material to polymer.

What happens with the polymer, and doesn't happen with Bakelite, is that the very flat back of the film becomes electrostaticly attracted to the very flat polymer receiving chamber. And since they're both so flat they present a *LOT* of surface area to stick together. And modern film is thin and crumples.

First, technique is important. If you can pull the film smoothly so it doesn't stop it is less likely to get stuck. But don't pull too fast either. This one of those, "Man you're just gonna have to practice it yourself" things.

Second, knock down the very slick mirror like finish on the inside of the receiving chamber. You absolutely do not want it to be rough and scratch the film. But if you can take a piece of 600 grit sand paper (this is where others may cringe) and gently scour the inside of the chamber it will have less contact area with the film as you're pulling the backing paper. Just make sure that it is smooth to the touch with no sharp point.

The best surface "feel" you could get would be about like the inside of a piece of CPVC pipe.

Now, having said all that, let me reiterate that either SS or Patterson style tanks aren't a bad investment.

Michael

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice Michael..........What you have described might just be the problem. What I found and thought might also be the problem was that the ends of the film spools had over time worn a groove on one side, which caused the spool to not sit level. Pulling the paper from both rolls was not smooth at all. I sanded it down with an emery board and it now sits level and is very easy to turn, compared to what it was before. I'll try my third roll tomorrow, and if I have the same problem, I'll sand the inside of the receiving chamber as you suggested. It's hard to imagine that someone could have used this thing enough to wear grooves in the plastic. If this unit will eventually work as well as the 35mm version, developing will be a breeze. I'll let you know how it works out.

I use a Paterson tank and go down the basement to load the film in the dark. Some people find loading the reel finicky but I have had to restart the loading only a few times. When I develop B/W I use Calbe R09 diluted 1:65 and standing development for 40 minutes. Works like a charm! I have even got a Tetenal C-41 kit and have, to date, developed 4 120-rolls of colour film. What a change of feel in the pictures!! Try it!

Some of them can be seen at flickr, look for user sm5jab.

chazz said:

Thanks for the advice Michael..........What you have described might just be the problem. What I found and thought might also be the problem was that the ends of the film spools had over time worn a groove on one side, which caused the spool to not sit level. Pulling the paper from both rolls was not smooth at all. I sanded it down with an emery board and it now sits level and is very easy to turn, compared to what it was before. I'll try my third roll tomorrow, and if I have the same problem, I'll sand the inside of the receiving chamber as you suggested. It's hard to imagine that someone could have used this thing enough to wear grooves in the plastic. If this unit will eventually work as well as the 35mm version, developing will be a breeze. I'll let you know how it works out.

Click to expand...

I found that the Bakelite Load-o-mat did work just as smoothly as the 35mm Rondinax. But I never tinkered with the Rondinax 60s beyond making the observations I described to you. Since I use a Phototherm for most of my processing it was more intellectual curiosity than anything else.

But as I said earlier, I can see that a folder and a Load-o-mat could have kept someone very satisfied.

MB

One more issue!

Never try to use these to process film from a Tamar Adapt-a-roll 620. It won't work with the film spooled backward.

I thought it through, and I could not figure out a way it could work. So I just tried it.

When you get to the tape you have to break the handle and extract the receiver to get the lid off. Ruins the film and leaves you with a broken handle.

This is all about the thickess of the film stock. Some modern film stocks are too thin to curl up as you pul the paper out. Try a roll of illford fp4+ or hp5+ I know both of these work fine. If they work you know there is nothing wrong with the tank. From then on if a roll of film does the same thing assume it is too thin and move on