FP4 8x10 sheet film base side anomalies in Jobo 3005

[Jordan.K]

I just processed some Ilford fp4 8x10 sheet film in a Jobo 3005 and the base side is getting some weird drying marks and is riddled with scratches as well. The marks look like some type of effect from liquid being trapped between two smooth surfaces (Jobo wall and base side of film) and causing some type flaw. I presoaked, used xtol, normal stop bath, and normal fixer. Washed for 30 mintues and did a final rinse in distilled water. The same thing happened with HP5 a few years back, so I stuck with Tri-X. Is Ilford's base not all that compatible with the function of the Jobo drums? I never get or got this problem with Kodak. Please chime in. Thanks.

 

[JLP]

I have had the exact same problem with both FP4+ and Delta 100 but never found out what the problem was. Did test at least two different fixers and developers but nothing changed. Tried low and high speed settings on the Jobo but no change.
90% of my 8x10 film use is Kodak so i moved on.
Will on occasion use some FP4+ and HP5+ but not for anything serious.

 

[Vaughn]

Are you using a hardening fix? If you are, switching to a non-hardening fix will probably solve your problem -- it did for me.

I use FP4+ in the 3005 all the time now with zero problems. Great film!

Vaughn

 

[Jordan.K]

I am using a non-hardening fixer, so that rules that out I suppose. Good to know someone experienced this with the Ilford films as well.

 

[Vaughn]

Dang, thought I had it nailed for you.

What speed does the drum turn -- and do you reverse it?

My workflow...

I use a 3 to 5 minute rinse, Ilford PQ Universal developer, Kodak Stop Bath, Kodak Rapid Fixer (without the Part B -- the hardener), a rinse (two times), Kodak HCA, then remove the film for washing (on hangers). I reverse the drum every minute - the auto reverse on the motor base did not allow for enough rotation of the drum before it reversed, due to the greater diameter of the 3005. I disconnected the auto-reverse mechanism.

I use a liter of chemistry, except sometimes only 500ml of stop bath. I wonder if this might help you if you are now use significantly less.

Vaughn

 

[Jordan.K]

I tried putting the film in a tray to presoak and then gently place them in the drum which was full of water thinking that maybe it was the initial contact of the film, water, and Jobo that happens during my normal process. It changed very little and there are still a ton scratches and strange clear blotches on the base side. All the chemistry is fresh and mixed just prior to using. This is the exact thing that happened to me with HP5 and I simply feel that no matter how careful I am that the base side is prone to scratches and whatnot. I want to like Ilford films, but they have been nothing but a headache thus far. Any further suggestions will continue to be appreciated. I need to get this figured out so that I can get back to making work.

 

[Vaughn]

Tray develop.

Not what you wanted to hear...

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Any further suggestions will continue to be appreciated. I need to get this figured out so that I can get back to making work.

Sacrifice a sheet, i.e. take it out of the box unexposed and unprocessed, then examine in light. If base scratches exist, you've a manufacturing defect. Contact Ilford and report; I assure you they will make good.

 

[johnielvis]

it's the film--same problems myself--tray is the way with ilford--so i try not to use it since I like the drums....this seems to plague the larger sheets more than anything else--if you're having problems like this with 8x10...11x14 sheets will be even worse--if not stuck to the tube---the larger sheets have problems getting the water back there to wash out the dyes---a presoak with a LOT of water (to provide pressure to get it behind the sheets) helps a lot--this takes care of the dye problem, but you'll still get rib marks on the back from the drum ribs (large sheets)....scratches also increase for the larger sheets since the pressure forces are greater, this causes more force to scratch the film---you'll never get rid of the scratches problem--things move around in a moving drum...if there is relative motion between the film and the drum you will scratch it...just get used to them or use kodak film--that's what I've been doing to eliminate the problems.

don't bother checking one from the box---the scratch are from the processing forces acting on the film...a similar pressure on 8x10 is 4x larger than on 4x5 sheets---so if you do 4x5 with no problems, the "no problems" doesn't scale up to larger sheets--the forces are much larger

the biggest problem is getting the water/chemicals in back of the film....start with a standing pre-soak--put the tube on the side and fill it to the top with water---the water pressure will push the film away from the drum as it fills....this will dissolve away the backing....fill again to rinse...1x 2x...till all the dye is gone.

scratches....no help...just be gentle I guess

 

[Simon R Galley]

Interesting post,

We have used Jobo processors for many years and fully auto processors in QC and we do not get issues, we also do not have any QC's for base scratches of any type on any film sheet or otherwise.

We DO NOT recommend pre-soaking any of our film products, in saying that that would not cause or add to this issue as described unless it was an very,very long pre-soak.

Jordan.K : Return an example of the film exhibiting the problem, along with batch number off the box and all the details and I will have it examined and a reply sent to you.

Simon.R.Galley,
HARMAN technology Limited,
Ilford Way,
Mobberley,
Knutsford.
CHESHIRE
WA16 7JL
United Kingdom.



When you buy ILFORD products you have the resource of our technical service, if you see an issue that you cannot figure out speak to us.

 

[johnielvis]

well, just because YOU don't notice any issues doesn't mean that I won't see them---I do almost all direct reversal--so I'm looking at the base side of the film up close and personal...the way I look VERY close---so I'm going to see imperfections that someone making a print won't see...you won't see them either unless your looking

when I started out--I'm looking at stuff I did in the past--they were perfectly "perfect" at that time....now...I see tons and tons of these marks and scratches---it's a matter of perfecting my methods and becoming more and more quality conscious over the years.

i'm sure if I lowered my standards to what other people find to be acceptable I'd have no problems with the marks and scratches---it seems when I show them to others, they have a hard time seeing them too, but they are there and they offend ME.

it's all subjective--the marks I get now that I find unacceptable would be just fine if I were making prints--they just would not matter.

anyways--I hate pre-soaks too--I like the developer to get right in and get down to business myself---presoak takes up time and interferes with this, however, I've found this helps tremendously with processing film in tubes--after all, the tubes were designed for prints---sheet hangers were designed for sheets....the problem stems from using PRINT tubes with film---but that's what home processors must do

hey--since most of sheet film business is now home processors, maybe it's time for a different design consideration---film once designed for hangers/professional labs should now be designed for print tubes....

or make a backing sheet for the films that can soak in the chemicals and aid to dissolve the layer without causing marks--actually one designed to eliminate marks and scratching would help---maybe you guys can work on that????? I'd certainly go for the ilford stuff if I could get it to work conveniently.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear John, If you are working in reversal I most certainly see your point, I have been down today to look at the stored sheet film negs ( every batch of film we make has samples taken, some is exposed and processed and some is stored unprocessed for future QC reference ) We may have a regime that does not replicate what you see, I will speak to tech service re tube processing and come back to you.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited ;

 

[johnielvis]

great---I think the most value would be to find some kind of blanket for the back of the sheets---this probably happens for all kinds of other films that people shoot too---the eastern euro stuff/chinese stuff...

like the ilford stuff is certainly better than that stuff--it's just the home processor is using print tubes these days--jobos can get the speed up and use centrifugal force to get the chems in back, but them are no longer made and cant find parts, etc....most people use the tubes for prints....I've tried many many solutions....none suffice with the ilford base---

when I used screens, the screens imprinted on the base side....it's like how the stuff gets dissolved--if the base is in contact with something, it's image will end up on the film base side...even if water/chems get in there later---it's just sensitive to the first touch of liquid---if not perfectly homogeneous immersion, you get marks/unevenness....

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...processing film in tubes--after all, the tubes were designed for prints---sheet hangers were designed for sheets....the problem stems from using PRINT tubes with film---but that's what home processors must do...

Jordan.K is using a Jobo 3005 Expert drum, not a "tube." The 3005 was designed specifically for film, not prints. Its five chambers are not cylindrical; they're "fat-waisted," i.e. the reverse of an hourglass. Assembled by hand from sheet stock to achieve that shape, the 3005 chambers are configured so they do permit liquids to reach the base side of film.

If the issues Jordan.K has experienced arose during processing and weren't already present in unexposed film, there are two parameters that may be involved.

First, although all current first-tier quality 8x10 black and white sheet films are coated on a 7-mil polyester base, significant differences exist between them in terms of flexibility. In my experience, Kodak 320TXP is much more rigid than the others, with TMX, TMY-2 and Delta 100 close behind. FP4 Plus is somewhat more flexible, HP5 Plus more flexible yet and Acros the most flexible of all. This can affect how they "hug" the individual chambers of a 3005 during rotary processing.

Second, rotation speed (in combination with film flexibility) can affect how much sheets of film will shift around in the chambers. The optimum speed for black and white film in an Expert Drum, when using non-pyro developers, is around 45 rpm. Jobo documentation for the CPA/CPP processors was never updated when motor upgrades rendered it obsolete. Consequently, some users set their processor controls to "4," thereby running at an excessively high rotation speed. This can cause film to be batted about wildly, potentially resulting in base damage if there are any rough spots -- even minor ones -- in the chamber.

 

[Jim Noel]

I use FP4+ and HP5+.
All film up to 8x10 gets developed in a Jobo drum and have never had the problems you mentioned.
I have had students who had similar problems because they ran the Job at too high a rotation rate. I set mine as slow as it will go and still rotate smoothly.

 

[johnielvis]

again---some people have lower standards.....you show me your sheets and I'll find what I'm talking about--I guarantee

tubes are drums are cylinders--the unicolors and the chromegas are also DESIGNED to get the chemicals back there...an they do--but they don't do it good enough for critical work like mine....

trays WILL give you scratches too--no kidding particularly LARGE sheets.

OH...yes...I have certainly noticed the difference in rigidity from kodak films and others....I've mentioned that too only to be poo poo'ed about that as well.

just because I experience something that you don't see doesn't mean it doesn't exist.....accept for a moment that it does and that the jobo system IS flawed and will always produce bad results just like trays....is that not possible? sure it is...

people see something that's designed to work a certain way and think it will deliver flawless results---it delivers results to someones acceptable tolerance limits---these limits are beneath my tolerance limits--that's all.

the problem exists---many many people have had it---this is not operator error--I guarantee you that myself and others have tried and tried again all kinds of different ways around the problem.....so many tries by so many people that I'm pretty much convinced that it's not operator error---it's final results judges of different quality standards.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...some people have lower standards...

It must be difficult for you to deal with all we others -- even the really picky ones, like me -- with standards so much lower than yours.

...tubes are drums are cylinders--the unicolors and the chromegas are also DESIGNED to get the chemicals back there...an they do--but they don't do it good enough for critical work like mine...

You're referring to print drums which, unlike Jobo Expert drums, were not designed to get chemicals to the base side of prints or film. Without question the wrong tools for this job.

...I have certainly noticed the difference in rigidity from kodak films and others....I've mentioned that too only to be poo poo'ed about that as well...

No, you've previously posted that Kodak film was thicker than others. I had to point out to you that it isn't, but that there is a difference in flexibility among the various products.

...accept for a moment that...the jobo system IS flawed and will always produce bad results just like trays...

The Jobo Expert drum system is not flawed. It produces excellent results when used properly.

I hope Simon doesn't waste too much of his time investigating issues related to processing in "tubes," since they are in no way appropriate for film development. However, since Jordan.K is appropriately using a Jobo Expert drum with his FP4 Plus, it will be very interesting to read what he and Simon discover about the issues he has been having. I'm especially curious to find out whether a manufacturing defect, rotation speed error or other development protocol misstep was to blame.

 

[johnielvis]

again...wouldn't it be MORE interesting to have my take on what they do? hey it looks like I'm seeing things that other people don't think are important--they are important to me

also---jobo ain't perfect--it is designed to provide a certain result--which, is almost certainly not designed to the spec of ZERO percent scratches and ZERO percent blotches--nothing, even if designed to produce such results, CAN produce such results in the real world. Engineers designed it to be good enough to satisfy the demands of the market--

anyways, please stop with the pedantic nit-picking--another person has the same problem that I have and we're trying to help each other here--and I'm trying to get a fiim producer to maybe perfect his product to my liking--don't ruin it for us, please.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...please stop with the pedantic nit-picking...I'm trying to get a fiim producer to maybe perfect his product to my liking--don't ruin it for us, please.

I'm sure Simon and Ilford are thrilled with your product development assistance. Don't worry, nothing I post in this thread to correct misinformation could possibly dissuade them from following your advice.

 

[johnielvis]

thank you

you see that no matter what fp4 WAS designed for and what jobo WAS designed for, the future is, de facto, that there is no more jobo and there is no jobo in the future--there are no replacement parts and the existing ones will break.

the future of most processing is almost certainly home processing using the tools available to most people. these tools do not include the jobo. Even those that have a jobo will eventually not have a jobo that functions "as designed" since they cannot be maintained with no spare parts and they cannot be replaced.

since the future likely does not include kodak and does not include jobo film processing except for those that have a stash of kodak that keeps and a jobo processor that keeps running, it looks like everybody's going to have to work together to get what's available to work together, including me and you.

good to see we're back to solving problems here.

and please, mr ilford man, do what you can to get your products to work with normal processing tubes, those that are available or can be home made--since jobos are basically NOT available to those just starting with your products. I ask that you stop your rotary testing using the jobo and start using regular print tubes, which is what the bulk of your customers ARE using and will be using.

 

[Vaughn]

JE -- I would guess that the majority of the Jobo Expert Drum users use them on motor bases (my method), rolling them on counter tops or rolling them in a tray of water (as a tempering bath)...and not on Jobo processors.

The Expert Drums are not perfect. If I need perfection (and generally with my images and printing processes I do not need perfection), I would tray develop with a piece of glass in the tray to prevent any scratching. I do not mind the bit of extra time and effort that would require, as the time and effort is nothing compared to the time spent traveling, finding and recording the image, and the time I will spend making the print(s).

I do get scratches on the backside of the film occasionally, but these can not be seen in my prints, so I do not worry about them. And these scratches could just as easily come from me loading the film into the film holders than from the drums.

Vaughn

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...the future is, de facto, that there is no more jobo and there is no jobo in the future--there are no replacement parts and the existing ones will break...

All things will break, but Jobo does still supply replacement parts. Used CPA/CPP/Autolab processors are obtainable on the used market. And, Jobo still manufactures and sells 3005 Expert drums brand new. See this post from yesterday for someone who purchased one:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

...good to see we're back to solving problems here...

Everything I posted has been aimed at assisting Jordan.K with his problem. Nothing for me to get "back to."

...since the future likely does not include kodak and does not include jobo film processing except for those that have a stash of kodak that keeps and a jobo processor that keeps running, it looks like everybody's going to have to work together to get what's available to work together, including me and you...

Can't speak for you, but I've always valued planning ahead. While I respect, admire, use and defend Ilford's top-quality products, far in the future there will be a time when even Ilford joins Kodak in the history books. Therefore, back in 2005, I stockpiled many thousands of sheets of Azo paper. I also purchased two Jobo processors, a CPA-2 and CPP-2, so as to have a spare for when parts eventually do become unavailable, along with a collection of tanks and Expert drums. Finally, I have obtained and placed in our freezer a large quantity of 320TXP sheet film. Taken together, these are my "doomsday" supplies. I don't anticipate needing to use them for many, many years.

In the meantime, Ilford film and paper are my mainstays. I primarily use FP4 Plus, but sometimes HP5 Plus, in 4x5, 5x7, Whole Plate and 8x10 sizes. Prints have been made on Adox MCC 110, but I recently found a developer and toning combination that works exquisitely with fiber based MGWT, so it will supplant the Adox for most images, given that its curve shape is more pleasing to me.

One thing not previously mentioned in this thread is that, whether developing Kodak or Ilford film, for 8x10 I don't use the 3005 Expert drum. Inserting that size film in those chambers is a tighter fit than I'm comfortable with. Instead, I use the rare and precious 3004 drum for 8x10. Its larger chambers seem better suited and are easier to load/unload. Purchasing only one 3004 drum before they were discontinued was my single largest planning failure. Although one can find them on the used market, listings are far and few between. If my shooting involved more 8x10, I'd be patiently looking for another 3004. However, since I mainly use 5x7 and whole plate film, processing 4 sheets of 8x10 and then having to dry the drum before running another batch has been an acceptable compromise.

 

[johnielvis]

ok I'm giving up on this thread---the dude trolling me will only fill it up with more rot to confuse everyone...

"I have no problems with a jobo and the jobo is the best" helps nobody no matter what you think.....bye bye...I'll contact the ilford guy privately too.

 

[Tori Nelson]

ok I'm giving up on this thread---the dude trolling me will only fill it up with more rot to confuse everyone...

"I have no problems with a jobo and the jobo is the best" helps nobody no matter what you think.....bye bye...I'll contact the ilford guy privately too.

The "Ilford guy" is named Simon, as it shows in his posts. Since you are seeking his help with your problem, it seems most disrespectful not to, at the very least, refer to him by name.

FWIW, I use Bostick & Sullivan's Rollo Pyro in my 3005 with Ilford HP5. I use a Bessler roller base, going in one direction only, and have never had a problem with scratches or uneven development.

 

[Sirius Glass]

ok I'm giving up on this thread---the dude trolling me will only fill it up with more rot to confuse everyone...

"I have no problems with a jobo and the jobo is the best" helps nobody no matter what you think.....bye bye...I'll contact the ilford guy privately too.

I have no problems getting Jobo parts.