Flipped JOBO?

[Bormental]

Apologies if I picked the wrong forum to ask this question, but I couldn't find anything more appropriate. I am thinking about getting a CPE-3 with a fork lift. I think my volume is about perfect, as I usually develop 4 rolls at a time, and it's borderline acceptable for manual dance with Patersons, but gets quite annoying if all 4 are different films.

However...

My laundry room is designed with the sink on the right (wrong) side. Is this possible to assemble CPE-3 in a "flipped" orientation, i.e. like this:

 

[Kino]

Pretty sure the CPE-3 is molded to be configured only one way...

 

[Tom Kershaw]

My CPP-3 is moulded to work in the standard configuration, not possible to reverse. I use my Jobo on a bench outside of the sink.

 

[AgX]

Exchange the outlet tube for a stiff tube going by means of two 90° pieces behind the processor to the sink. There by means of two furher 90° pieces you yield an outlet you can place your bottles under.

 

[Bormental]

Thank you all. I am thinking this may not be that big of a deal, actually.

 

[ic-racer]

I'd consider using longer hoses and run them behind the unit to the right.

 

[AgX]

If he just uses a longer hose he likely will no longer be able to place a bottle under under its end as in the original state. That is why I proposed rigid tubes.

 

[Rudeofus]

There is no reason to let the CPE-2/3 exit hose go into the drain. I usually place a jug under the hose to collect whatever is coming out. Most places I have been to, and the SF bay area in particular, have very strict rules against flushing photochemistry down the drain. You proposed setup would cover the wash steps at best, and probably provide no even surface for a receiving jug to stand on.

I recommend you place your CPE-3 on a flat table. If you are concerned about spills and splashes, place it into a large developer tray. Collect all liquids with properly sized jugs, and dispose of their content as required by laws and local regulations.

 

[AgX]

There is no reason to let the CPE-2/3 exit hose go into the drain.

To my understanding no one proposed such.

 

[Rudeofus]

To my understanding no one proposed such.

I interpreted the OP as a query, whether the CPE-3 can be mirrored such that the drain hose can point into his sink, which happens to be on the right side.

 

[Bormental]

Correct. Pre-soaking and washing film is more convenient when you don't have to collect water on the left, then move & dump it on the right. This has nothing to do with chemicals, as they go back into the bottle anyway.

 

[Rudeofus]

You do not presoak film when you use a temperature controlled water jacket anyway. Yes, there are some wash steps for which waste water collection is a bit tedious, but it's just a small fraction of the overall tedium.

You could think about preparing one specific "infinite waste water jug" with a flexible hose attached to its bottom, that hose going behind your processor and directly into the drain. Would this make sense?

 

[AgX]

I am slow on the uptake. When it is not about putting the bottles into the sink to refill by tube with the baths, I do not see why it should matter whether the sink is on the right or the left of the processor.

 

[Bormental]

You do not presoak film when you use a temperature controlled water jacket anyway.

This has nothing to do with the temperature. Foma films (120) must be pre-soaked to avoid tiny specs of undissolved anti-halation layer. In fact, I see best results when I pre-soak them for 15+ minutes.

You could think about preparing one specific "infinite waste water jug" with a flexible hose attached to its bottom, that hose going behind your processor and directly into the drain. Would this make sense?

That's a good idea. I am also thinking I'll just re-use one of those 5L Flexicolor chemistry jugs. Will put them in a flat plastic pan to ensure against accidents and I think I'll be fine. Basically, I just realized that it's not a lot of water, so my original question probably falls into "premature optimization" category

 

[AgX]

This has nothing to do with the temperature. Foma films (120) must be pre-soaked to avoid tiny specs of undissolved anti-halation layer. In fact, I see best results when I pre-soak them for 15+ minutes.

I do not see what effect presoaking has on that layer other than a prolonged process. As I repeatedly hinted at, preasoaking is an american idea only lately showing up here too.

 

[Bormental]

It is a recommended procedure according to Bregger's data sheet. Foma films in medium format frequently fail without pre-soaking. This is not up for a debate. I have tried Foma in ISO 100/200/400 in 4 developers at different dilutions and temperatures, dozens of rolls purchased at different times from different retailers, branded as Foma or Arista EDU Ultra, using tap, filtered and distilled water. This is my most used emulsion after HP5+. These films must be pre-soaked (higher temperature is even better, 30-35C) to avoid a risk of seeing small white dots appearing all over your negatives. Foma's customer support explained the source of the dots (poor AHU). They claim "there was a defective batch". No. The severity of this varies, but Foma negatives always look clean after a 10-15 minute pre-soak at 30C, but sometimes show the dots without a pre-soak. So no, it's not an American idea it's a matter of experience, attention to detail and demand for quality results (some people do not mind/see the white dots, maybe because too many are scanning 120 negatives on flatbeds).

Kodak and Ilford do not need pre-soaking. 35mm Foma uses a different AHU and it's also fine without pre-soaking.

 

[AgX]

It is a recommended procedure according to Bregger's data sheet. Foma films in medium format frequently fail without pre-soaking. This is not up for a debate. I have tried Foma in ISO 100/200/400 in 4 developers at different dilutions and temperatures, dozens of rolls purchased at different times from different retailers, branded as Foma or Arista EDU Ultra, using tap, filtered and distilled water. This is my most used emulsion after HP5+. These films must be pre-soaked (higher temperature is even better, 30-35C) to avoid a risk of seeing small white dots appearing all over your negatives. Foma's customer support explained the source of the dots (poor AHU). They claim "there was a defective batch". No. The severity of this varies, but Foma negatives always look clean after a 10-15 minute pre-soak at 30C, but sometimes show the dots without a pre-soak. So no, it's not an American idea it's a matter of experience, attention to detail and demand for quality results (some people do not mind/see the white dots, maybe because too many are scanning 120 negatives on flatbeds).

Kodak and Ilford do not need pre-soaking. 35mm Foma uses a different AHU and it's also fine without pre-soaking.

It is a American idea. In none of my european textbooks it shows up. And at the european industry I only find reference in the years of internet.


Well, I do not understand that presoaking as general concept, nor this AHU Issue (more so as there is no AHU at all) nor the left-side/right-side sink issue. Let's keep it at this, before deviating further.

 

[Rudeofus]

Presoaking is incredibly tempting, especially with inversion tanks. The dev kit instructions say "immerse in tempered water for 5 minutes, which is an easy task with a processor, but not with empty inversion tanks.

 

[pentaxuser]

Bormental I had thought that I had seen a thread in which the Foma pre-soak had been recommended by Foma as a result of one faulty batch of film? I wasn't aware this was a permanent Foma recommendation.

pentaxuser

 

[Bormental]

@pentaxuser you are correct, they recommended a long pre-soak for their "affected batch". I am stating that Foma's AHU layer behavior varies from roll to roll. My recommendation, if one wants consistent results, is to always pre-soak, especially if you're using an inversion tank, until they fix their AHU quality control.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply. I understand your reasons and as even Ilford who do not recommend a pre-soak has said, it cannot do any harm

pentaxuser

 

[ic-racer]

This is my setup with the hoses.

 

[AgX]

And what would be the problem if the sink would be on the right side??

I hinted at installing a tube for the spent processing bath, if one wants to put a bottle in the sink for it (and where a hose just leading to other side would not be as conveniant).
But the OP stated that such was not his problem.

 

[Bormental]

And what would be the problem if the sink would be on the right side??

I want one with a lift so I can pour chemicals out back into the original bottles easily. It would be safer to have all the bottles+chems inside a sink, so in case of an accident the damage would be contained, as opposed to having chems spill all over, including the behind-the-cabinet, impossible to clean areas. Speaking of accidents, just recently I had a glass bottle of bleach explode in my hands, but luckily it happened over the sink area.

A good compromise would be to have a flat tub on the left side and have all the bottles there. Still not as foolproof as having them in a sink, but I'm thinking it's good enough.

 

[AgX]

But as I proposed above, if the sink is on the wrong side, just install a tube line with some angles to the sink and fill there the bottles as if they were standing on the right side.