FP4 8x10 sheet film base side anomalies in Jobo 3005

[Sirius Glass]

... I presoaked, used xtol, normal stop bath, and normal fixer ...

Read the last line. From page 49 of the Jobo manual:







Case closed.

 

[Vaughn]

Thanks Sirius, but if one uses a "pre"-rinse, does that mean one still uses a rinse? J/K...

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Case re-opened

Read the last line. From page 49 of the Jobo manual:...Case closed.

Jobo saw no value in repeating Kodak's extensive Xtol testing with a presoak. Jobo published the following; scroll almost to its bottom:

http://www.jobo.com/jobo_service_analog/jq/jq9802.htm

Note that, in the final paragraph, Jobo indicated neither presoaking nor not presoaking is right or wrong with any black and white film. Both methods work well.

 

[Jordan.K]

I can't imagine that the presoak would cause the issue I have with the film. The scratches are not coming from the film sliding around I don't think as the one thing about this Ilford film stuff is that the base seems to really adhere to the wall. With that being said there was also no colored anti-halation layer visible meaning that the chem can easily make it's way between. Could it possibly be that the anti-halation layer becomes practically clear and that is what is happening? Could it be some reaction to the nitrile gloves being used? I am gonna do a batch by tray this weekend, but I will say that the Ilford film also feels a lot more slippery than Kodak when I tried that presoak from a tray to the water filled drum. Regardless of whether they are all supposed to be on the same thickness of plastic, I feel like it can't be entirely true. The Tri-X just feels that much more robust.

 

[langedp]

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.

You're the one out of line here. Way out of line. Many of us use Jobo systems and Expert drums, not print drums to process sheet film. That is the proper tool and what the OP asked about. And has been said previously, his name is Simon, not the Ilford guy. He's been nothing but helpful to all of us. I hope he does not waste his time with your "problem".

 

[JLP]

It would be nice if we had an ignore list here as on the Large Format Forum.

 

[MattKing]

It would be nice if we had an ignore list here as on the Large Format Forum.

We do - click on the person's name, and then their profile.

It makes threads look really weird, and you will become frustrated if anyone quotes the ignored person.

 

[JLP]

Done, thanks Matt.

 

[johnielvis]

I figured out the PROBLEM by looking in at an operating processor...not a jobo..but here's how i solved the same problem with different equipment (this is the post from lf forum--the solution goes into much detail in the other thread on pocessing equipment on lf forum).

...see the other thread on processing equipment....

I figureed out you need 100% contact with the developing/rinse fluid to get off the anit-halation layer----this means S L O W rotation to ensure liquid stays at the bottom of the tube trough AND sufficient chemicals to submerge the part of the film on the bottom....

So--advise using more developer if you don't have enough in there for full contact...if you DO, then you're spinning it too fast.....

I ran one of these opened up and saw what was going on in there.....

see the other thread under processing equpment....

I don't know how the jobos work with the multi chamber though but suffice it to say...the film MUST get full ly submerged to evenly remove the antihalation dyes/backing----this is the result of experimentation and my observations of the moving rolling drum with liquid and film it.

 

[Jordan.K]

Update:
I processed the remainder of my 8x10 FP4 CAREFULLY by tray yesterday and had the same results as with the Jobo. I then processed some Tri-X in the EXACT same manner, without even the slightest hint of a scratch or any other type of anomaly on the base side. The emulsion side of the FP4 looks fine, but the base side is such a disaster in appearance. Does the base side react to Nitrile gloves perhaps? Pulling a sheet from the box without dong anything to it, the FP4 looks fine. Now remember how the Tri-X came out (same holders, developer, final distilled water rinse with LFN, amongst all the other standards) and not even one hint of any issue on the base side. If it's all coated on the same basic plastic, what is it with Ilford's 8x10 films and their base sides? I stated this happened in the past with HP5 in 8x10 as well. Thanks again to anyone with any ideas. Just to make it clear, I like Ilford and want to support them beyond using their papers.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Update...I processed the remainder of my 8x10 FP4 CAREFULLY by tray yesterday and had the same results as with the Jobo. I then processed some Tri-X in the EXACT same manner, without even the slightest hint of a scratch or any other type of anomaly on the base side....If it's all coated on the same basic plastic, what is it with Ilford's 8x10 films and their base sides?...

Let's review. In an earlier post, I wrote:

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.

After which Simon posted:

...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...

Have you sent a sample of the film to Ilford yet? If not, why not? If so, have you received a reply? If so, what was it?

Subsequently, you wrote:

...The scratches are not coming from the film sliding around I don't think as the one thing about this Ilford film stuff is that the base seems to really adhere to the wall...

Just because it seems "stuck" to the chamber walls when you remove it doesn't mean it hadn't slid around during processing. Tray processing offers just as much opportunity to scratch the base as shifting in a 3005 does.

...Regardless of whether they are all supposed to be on the same thickness of plastic, I feel like it can't be entirely true. The Tri-X just feels that much more robust.

Yes, FP4 Plus and 320TXP are each coated on a 7-mil polyester base. Kodak's version is less flexible than Ilford's. However, the difference you're experiencing is probably more a result of what's on (or not on) the base.

Sheet Tri-X, i.e. 320TXP, has an extra final coating applied to its base side so that retouching dyes can be applied there, on the emulsion side or both. It's the only currently available sheet film with that feature. In my experience, the retouching base coating is extremely resistant to scratches from mishandling. It permits a very casual approach to processing without bad consequences. Other sheet films reveal every tiny scratch when abraded by tray bottoms, drum chamber walls, etc.

If you have positively eliminated a manufacturing defect in the FP4 Plus by coordinating with Ilford, my suggestion is to try carefully loading completely dry film into a completely dry 3005, keeping it curled as much as possible when sliding into chambers. Then, insure you're rotating at the correct speed. See this thread for more discussion on Jobo rotation speeds:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=86072

Post #11 may be of particular interest.

 

[Jordan.K]

I have not sent one to Simon as of yet, because I was waiting too see if tray processing would remedy my issue. Also perhaps someone would see this thread who hadn't prior and may have a clue as to why this was happening.

 

[Simon R Galley]

All ILFORD film ( and most others ) are coated on both sides.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Sheet Tri-X, i.e. 320TXP, has an extra final coating applied to its base side so that retouching dyes can be applied there...

All ILFORD film ( and most others ) are coated on both sides...

Yes, there's the anti-halation layer, and perhaps something additional, but I'm unaware of any films other than 320TXP that include a final, dull retouching layer which remains on its base after processing is complete. Please correct that if I'm wrong.

 

[Vaughn]

Historically there were. I have an unopened box of out-dated Ilford 5x7 "Portrait Film". I have always assumed it was designed for retouching. I must give the film a try to see if it is still any good.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Historically there were...

OK, but how about currently manufactured film that Jordan can purchase now?