How do you develop 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 sheet film?

[Hunter_Compton]

Any help for 9x12?

Sadly no, there's not enough room in a 3 reel Paterson tank for that kind of film holder to take 9x12. The max is about 83mm width before you're out of space between the agitator column and tank wall. Can't make the tank larger in diameter and can't make the center column smaller or the funnel won't fit.

 

[grahamp]

A little off-topic, but my next plan is to add a 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 to 4x5 back adapter. So I can use any film emulsion I want in 4x5, in a slightly cropped 4x4 square format. Talking about giant instagram with the Graflex RB! The reason I wanted to go this route is because the 3x4 Graflex is quite a bit smaller and lighter than 4x5 version.

3x4 Graflex SLR to 4x5 conversion kit by acornelissen | Download free STL model | Printables.com

Replaces the 3x4 back on your Graflex SLR with a 4x5 back. | Download free 3D printable STL models

www.printables.com

I made something along these lines for my Galvin 6x9 (2.25x3.25). It gives me a 90x90 mm image on 4x5 film. The rationale being that 2x3 film is twice the price of 4x5, and available in fewer emulsions. While I can cut down 4x5, it may make more logistical sense to batch process 4x5 rather than the smaller size. Just for fun, I actually made an insertion adapter to let me use the 2x3 holders on a 4x5, though I doubt that I will use it much!

4x5 on a Galvin 2x3 it's been useful a few times.

I'll look at your 2x3 version with interest - I may even have a Paterson tank somewhere.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Here's the same thing but for 2x3 film only, will fit in a 2 reel Paterson Tank:

2x3 Sheet Film Insert for 2 Reel Paterson Tank by Hcompton79

Same as my 3x4 holder but shortened for 2x3 film only and will fit in a 2 reel Paterson tank.

www.thingiverse.com

I have both 2-reel and 3-reel Paterson tanks -- I'll grab both files.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Sadly no, there's not enough room in a 3 reel Paterson tank for that kind of film holder to take 9x12. The max is about 83mm width before you're out of space between the agitator column and tank wall. Can't make the tank larger in diameter and can't make the center column smaller or the funnel won't fit.

Weren't we just told (up this thread) that 9x12 works in the Mod45? If so, it'll probably also work in a B's 4x5.

 

[Kino]

Weren't we just told (up this thread) that 9x12 works in the Mod45? If so, it'll probably also work in a B's 4x5.

Up the thread I posted a B's 9x12 tank link which fits the Patterson 3 reel tank; which will also work with quarter plate...

 

[Hunter_Compton]

Weren't we just told (up this thread) that 9x12 works in the Mod45? If so, it'll probably also work in a B's 4x5.

I'm only speaking to my design where 12 sheets are arranged radially, changing geometry could get the sheets to physically fit in the tank (such as with the B's 4x5 holder), but I doubt you'd be able to fit 12 (there you would only fit 6).

 

[Donald Qualls]

I doubt you'd be able to fit 12

Some of our users would never want to fit 12 sheets of even 2x3 or 3x4, for more or less the same reason they develop a single roll of 35 mm in a two-reel tank filled to capacity -- they like to use diluted developer and want to have plenty of working solution to ensure enough active developer for their film area.

Sill, I've got a Mod54 for when I want to do fewer than seven 4x5 (mainly because I need 1.65 liters to process even one 4x5 in my Agitank), and it and the Agitank will both do 9x12 (6 sheets in the Mod54, 12 in the Agitank), and a set of daylight tubes for singles in 9x12 or 4x5 (they'd undoubtedly do 3x4 as well, with shorter tubes requiring less liquid). It's only 2x3 I don't have an efficient way to handle, and I don't expect to shoot a lot of that (as someone else has noted, 2x3 costs more than same emulsion 4x5 -- but 4x5 won't fit my Century Graphic).

 

[Hunter_Compton]

For reference, a 36 exposure roll of 35mm is 80 sq in, and 12 sheets of 3x4 is 165 sq in, so it's about the same as two rolls of 35mm. Assuming you're using HC-110 (which I'm referencing because I'm familiar with it) and their recommendation of 6 ml concentrate per 36 exp roll, it's 1:66, or approximately the same as HC-110 dilution H, 1:63.

That said:

Now different developers will have different capacities, but even then, I doubt you'd run into exhaustion issues doing the equivalent of two 35mm 36 exp rolls in about 1000ml in a three reel Paterson tank.

Plus, the film holders I designed always allow you to use any number of sheets from 1-12. They just can't accommodate 9x12.

 

[MarkS]

I found that the Nikor stainless tank worked well for 3x4, but had endless problems with it for 4x5. (Your results may vary.)
I've since built a darkroom and now process both sizes in trays. That's just what I'm most familiar with.

 

[Romanko]

Does your design give consistent development all across the film? I can see how this would be a problem. The flow pattern along the edges is likely to be quite uneven.

It could probably be improved by adding slots to the bottom plate and lifting the whole holder a bit off the bottom of the tank to facilitate the flow of the solutions.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

It could probably be improved by adding slots to the bottom plate and lifting the whole holder a bit off the bottom of the tank to facilitate the flow of the solutions.

The bottom of the holder is an open frame, so there's no need for slots, it also sits about 3mm off the bottom of the tank. The center part mimics a standard Paterson 3 reel column, so it has the same fill characteristics.

 

[Romanko]

The bottom of the holder is an open frame, so there's no need for slots, it also sits about 3mm off the bottom of the tank. The center part mimics a standard Paterson 3 reel column, so it has the same fill characteristics.

Thank you for clarifying this. I have concerns about the area marked in the photo that potentially creates uneven flow of solution during agitation.

I suggest that the bottom plate could be made to resemble that of the normal reel (with arc slots) to ensure more even flow.

It was not clear from the first photo if the holder is meant to be used without the center column. If this is the case a few extra millimeters gap would still help in creating a better flow (you have plenty of space at the top to accommodate this).

This is an awesome design! Once again, thank you for creating and sharing it.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

Thank you for clarifying this. I have concerns about the area marked in the photo that potentially creates uneven flow of solution during agitation.

View attachment 386586
I suggest that the bottom plate could be made to resemble that of the normal reel (with arc slots) to ensure more even flow.

It was not clear from the first photo if the holder is meant to be used without the center column. If this is the case a few extra millimeters gap would still help in creating a better flow (you have plenty of space at the top to accommodate this).

This is an awesome design! Once again, thank you for creating and sharing it.

Possibly, I just basically copied the inside of the Kodak film pack tank when including that aspect. They didn't seem to have concerns about uneven agitation when designing that, and I haven't had any issues either, so I'll probably just leave it be. If anything, I would think changing to a solid plate with slots would restrict the flow of developer more, which would lead to less even development due to increased fill time, but I could be wrong on that.



And yes, to maximize space for the sheets, this does completely replace the original center column. I assure you there is a gap between the bottom of the tank and the bottom of where the sheets fit, it's a slightly larger gap than where it would be if you were using the roll film reels.

 

[koraks]

It could probably be improved by adding slots to the bottom plate and lifting the whole holder a bit off the bottom of the tank to facilitate the flow of the solutions.

I think so, yes. That is to say, I'd certainly try to remove as much material as possible along the outer ring along the bottom. But to be honest, the whole arrangement with the folded sheets makes it liable IMO to surge marks.
I also understand and accept that @Hunter_Compton hasn't run into any issues yet; I'd say 'knock on wood' and hope it stays that way. Problems like these can pop up with specific combinations of developer and film more easily than with others. For me, 510 Pyro has always been more of a concern than, say, XTOL/Instant Mytol, to name one example that comes to mind.