Got myself a BIG tank

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,794
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
Doesn't have caterpillar wheels though, but it's an 8-reel Paterson 4 tank, which gulps a heft 2.5L of solution. I bought it to develop 120 rolls, and I can do 5 of them at the same time with that tank.

Now my question is: does this count as a "Large Tank" in terms of development time for APX100? Shall I need to adjust developing times?

I wonder because my development time for APX100 in 120 was calibrated using my 1-reel tank. I do 14mins for Rodinal 1+50, and will eventually use 1+100 (hence the big tank). I read the Agfa documentation and the only other category of developing tanks is called simply "Tank", for which Refinal is recommended. I don't intend on using Refinal, so I'd rather make sure that I'm not going to screw all my travel rolls at once.

In the Kodak doc, they consider large tank anything above 1/2 gallon (~2L), and add about a minute to the recommended times.
 

Paul Sorensen

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
1,912
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Format
Multi Format
I bet that it would not be of much help even if you knew the answer. There are so many variations to big tanks, super duper large, just kinda big and so on that the only way to get the results you need are to test it. I do imagine that it will add a bit of time to your development, but so would a 5 roll tank that would not officially qualify as "large."
 

Paul Sorensen

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
1,912
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Format
Multi Format

Nick Zentena

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
4,666
Location
Italia
Format
Multi Format
The document also gives a different agitation method for big tank. I don't think they really mean a Patterson or similar tank when they're talking about a big tank.

"Agitate continuously for the first 15 to 30 seconds by raising and lowering the basket, rack, or spindle 1/2-inch. Do not agitate the basket, rack, or spindle for the remainder of the first minute. Then agitate once per minute by lifting the basket, rack, or spindle out of the developer, tilting it approximately 30 degrees, draining it for 5 to 10 seconds, and reimmersing it. Alternate the direction of tilting the basket, rack, or spindle."

Maybe the spindle points towards a drum tank?
 
OP
OP

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,794
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
Hm, as a rule of thumb, would you people consider that adding a bit of dev time could prevent disaster? Generally speaking, what would be the impact of developping film in a bigger tank? Would the bigger volume of liquid means that each agitation has a bigger impact?
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,349
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
If you're agitating by inversion, it's still the same as a "small tank". "Large tank" might be thought of as similar to "deep tank" where inversion is (as Nick said above) by lifting and reimmersing, in total darkness.

Personally, I'm interested in a 2-reel Paterson (really only need the tank and core, not the lid, twirler, or inversion cap); being limited to two rolls of 120 per fill is starting be annoying, and a stainless tank that would hold four rolls of 120 takes 2 quarts of developer; Paterson can do it with one liter if you load two rolls on each reel.
 

magic823

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
456
Location
Boise, ID
Format
Multi Format
Donald Qualls said:
Paterson can do it with one liter if you load two rolls on each reel.
Click to expand...

I have enough trouble getting one roll of 120 on a Paterson reel. I can't imagine trying to get two of them back to back.

Speaking of tanks. I just bought a Wing-Lynch processor today (still have to pick it up). Any one know what kind of reels and holders it uses (since it does from 35mm to 11x14).

Steve
 

pelerin

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
343
Format
Multi Format

...hmm, I have only seen them with Hewes SS reels in 135 and 120. The reels go in machined plexi tubes. Make sure you get the tubes as I believe that they would be quite expensive to replace.
Celac.
 

Paul Sorensen

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
1,912
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Format
Multi Format
I suspect that any difference will be minimal. Since there is no consensus of what will happen, I would probably do the normal process and times and carefully inspect the negs. If they are off, I would guess that it would be a fraction of a stop and no where near enough to ruin the negs. You can then adjust your times for future batches.
 

Paul Sorensen

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
1,912
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Format
Multi Format
Oh, one more thing. My assumption is that the agitation will be less with a larger tank that is full of solution. This because there is much less free space for agitation compared to a smaller tank. In my experience, all Patterson tanks, from the one roll tank to the five, which is the larges I have used, have the same amount of free space at the top. If you have two liters of fluid with only maybe 200ml of free space that will agitate a lot less than a tank with 500ml of solution and 200ml of free space.
 

magic823

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
456
Location
Boise, ID
Format
Multi Format
pelerin said:
...hmm, I have only seen them with Hewes SS reels in 135 and 120. The reels go in machined plexi tubes. Make sure you get the tubes as I believe that they would be quite expensive to replace.
Celac.
Click to expand...

They say they have the following items
4 gpm Electronic Water Temperature Controller and Filter Set (includes manual)
Black & White Timer
C-41 Timer
E-6 Timer
Nitrogen Regulator
Developing Tube Sets
Trays
Plumbing
Trough with Light Trap Lid
Solution Recovery System (includes manual)
Operation & Installation Manual
Factory Service Manual
and More

and the machine was completely refurbed by wing-lynch. And for $245 I figure I couldn't go wrong.

Steve
 
OP
OP

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,794
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
I think I'll go by Donald's and Paul's recommendations, and give a slightly more vigorous agitation, but not lose sleep on screwing up my negs. Thanks a lot all for your insights!

Donald, how do you manage to load two 120 films on a single Paterson reel?
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,349
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
magic823 said:
I have enough trouble getting one roll of 120 on a Paterson reel. I can't imagine trying to get two of them back to back.
Click to expand...

I don't have any problem loading my Paterson, and have two reels that fit it; both adjust from 35 mm to 120, and both are long enough for 220. To load two 120 rolls in a reel, my path would be to load the first roll, work it around about 1/2 turn after the tail feeds in, then start the head of the second roll; when it meets up with the tail of the first, a strip of masking tape would keep them from overrunning and let me run the film the rest of the way on. Either that, or I fabricate a means of locking the first roll into the core of the reel like Jobo reels use...
 

Keith Tapscott.

Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
1,827
Location
Plymouth. UK
Format
Multi Format

A nice tank, although you could also have bought a Jobo 1540 Multitank which holds 2x #120 size rolls per reel and has a divider clip to prevent the second roll of film riding over the first roll. I find these reels even easier to load than my Paterson tank reels, the Jobo 1540 allows you to process 4x #120 size rolls, using 975 ml of solution for inversion agitation so you could run two of these and still use less chemicals than your 8x reel Paterson tank.
As for development with your Paterson tank, use normal small tank times.
If you`re not familiar with the 1+100 dilution of your developer, then stick with your regular dilution rather than risk incorrect processing of your valuable films.
 
OP
OP

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,794
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
Well, the tank was used, the films developed, and the negatives looked at. Everything seems normal: no streaking, no uneven development, no boost or drop in contrast from usual practice, so from now on I can consider it a small tank. Thanks to all the folks who contributed their advice.

Now you should see my muscles after agitating 2.5Kg of water...they haven't changed at all! I need a better exercise.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,349
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Remember, small weight, more reps, builds endurance; large weight, fewer reps, builds strength and muscle girth. If you want to really build 'em up, make yourself a tube tank from 4" ABS pipe, sized to fit eight 120 reels. It'll weight about twice what your Paterson does, and if you make a daylight fill cap for it, you can still use it the same way and treat it as a "small tank". Of course, you might have to increase your film consumption to be able to use it often enough to make a difference in your biceps...
 

Ronald Moravec

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
1,355
Location
Downers Grov
As long as you have enough ACTIVE developer and you are not stopping or slowing development due to it running out of steam and you agitate at the same rate, the results will be the same.

I have done 35mm in a 1/2 gal 4x5 tank using a lift rod after I was done with the 4x5, and the results are the same as when using a small tank.

Large tank times are different because people replenish developers for large tanks and agitate sheet film less often than 35mm.

you may want to be careful how you time your Patterson as fill and empty times are long. I would consider developer hits the lower rolls sooner than the upper ones and the reverse happens when you empty. This time difference is less signoficant with a small one reel tank.
 

Lee Shively

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
1,324
Location
Louisiana, U
Format
Multi Format
FWIW, for some time now I've been using a stainless tank that holds 4 120 or 8 35mm reels. I use the same time and inversion agitation methods I do when using a single reel tank. While I don't have a densitometer, I've never noticed any difference in the negatives. I would run a batch using your standard developing methods and see if there's any difference.
 

Lee Shively

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
1,324
Location
Louisiana, U
Format
Multi Format
Opps!

Sorry, mhv. I missed your post that said you had already tested the tank.

Ignore me. Carry on.
 
OP
OP

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,794
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
Lee, I have a tank that's like yours in SS (I like SS only for 120), and I tried it later on, with similar success to a small tank.

I always make a prewet before pouring the developer, and I was wondering if it had a useful effect: I can never determine whether it slows down or accelerate the absorbtion of developer. I would wager on slow down, because the water in the gelatin has to be replaced by developer, but what is the real dope?
 

Changeling1

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Messages
655
Location
Southern Cal
Format
4x5 Format
MHV- Do you have a lifetime supply of APX?

I used the same 8-reel Patterson tank to process APX 100 35mm and 120 for years and never adjusted the development times for the different size films. Often I would combine 120 and 35mm rolls (APX 100) in the same tank together with no ill effects. I used either Rodinal or HC-110 developers, with no time adjustments for either format.

I have one unopened brick of APX 120 that I'm keeping for old-times sake as I go about the business of finding new films to standardize with. Ilford looks most promising because it makes all three size films that I use although I had a devil of a time in the past with their 35 mm film curling up so bad I could hardly make a proofsheet with it. Sort of made me Ilford-shy in the film department. I have always loved Ilford's DW FB VC printing papers. If I could only trust Kodak- I'd standardize with Tri-X and Plus-X (35 mm, 120, and 4x5) but I'm waiting for Kodak to drop the "no-more-film" bomb any day now.

If analog film and paper prices go up substantially then careful standardization - ala Fred Picker (and others) might be the order of the day.
 
OP
OP

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,794
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
Changeling1 said:
MHV- Do you have a lifetime supply of APX?
Click to expand...

Say, is that an offer or a taunt? By the time I realized what APX 100 was able to do, Agfa took its plunge. I dearly hope for the second coming of APX through the Maco/Rollei partnership, if what I've heard is true.


I have a 100' roll of Tri-X for now, so I can at least practice how to know a film. I suppose that when it get shelved, I will have figured out my testing and adoption procedure. Kodak's CEO has been quoted again this week saying that "film is gone" (see related thread today). What a yellow snark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…