Jobo 2509 reels

[richard littlewood]

I know there are other threads on this, but recently I've been using 5x4 Fomapan 100 instead of my regular FP4, developing in a CPE2 with the 2509n reels, ID-11 1+2, fastest speed. With FP4 I managed very evenly dev'd negs, even with the full 6 sheets to a reel, and 12 in the tank in total. With the Foma film however there is nasty edge build up all round a sheet, and a sort of lesser developed couple of long blotches that I can only put down to the effects of the 2 black plastic retaining flaps and what they do to the developer flow pattern. The more I look at these flaps, the more I'm convinced all they were designed to do is hold the sheets perfectly in place.
Anyone had similar problems?
Anyhow I'm going to try 4 sheets of Foma to a reel - outer and inner slots, and do away with the flaps and see if that works. I tried loading a reel with duff pieces of film and spinning it in a tray of water, and they seem to behave OK, and looking at the flaps it is difficult to see how they have a positive contribution to evenness of develpoment, even though FP4 seems to do OK with them on. I understand the Foma film is prone to density increase much more severly than FP4, and from staring too long at a loaded reel it seems to me the flaps force fluids out towards the spiral edges, and at the same time alter flow over the neg quite unevenly.
Interesting that the older 2509 reel has no retaining flaps so developer will move over the film in a much more linear way, and possibly more evenly.
I did a few shots on the Foma in fog that are terrible - way too cursed with developer issues.
Be good to hear from 2509 users and what life without the flaps is like.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Jobo claimed the inserts were to improve the developer flow. They never claimed a need to hold the film in place. You'll notice no inserts for the smallest format came with the reels.

 

[Photo Engineer]

My instructions say that for best uniformity only process 4 sheets per reel.

PE

 

[richard littlewood]

Nick.
Thing is they do hold the sheets-all 6-in place really well, but it's not too easy to see how they might improve developer flow. They do obviously disrupt it but I'm not sure. Also with smaller formats and the reels the natural stiffness of the smaller sheets will keep them in place OK, so is it only 5x4 that needs the 'improved' developer flow?
Such sweet mystery!

 

[richard littlewood]

Photo Engineer.
Is that the older or 'n' reel?

 

[trexx]

The flaps were added later to prevent problems. I have never had issues with developing when I used the flaps. They should be used. They are not needed to hold the sheets in place but for preventing surge the patterns you think they are causing.

A scan of the neg might help.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I never could figure why some have problems while others don't. I use D-23 1:3 and it's never caused problems with various films. At first I thought it was because of all the developer [it seems many having problems are using less developer volume] but I'm not sure.

It's not just 4x5 but the 9x12 also got inserts. It's only the smallest [6.5x9?? I forget] that didn't

 

[Photo Engineer]

Photo Engineer.
Is that the older or 'n' reel?

I would guess the older reels as they did not come with flaps. It did need a "loader" for each size of film. This device is used to feed the film properly into the alternate slots, ie. 1, 3, 4 and 6.

PE

 

[richard littlewood]

Just dev'd some sheets without using the flaps on the reels, 4 sheets to a reel, 8 in the tank in total, ID-11 1+2, so a total solution volume of 750ml, Fomapan 100, 8.5 mins. Did 2 batches (16 sheets) All the sheets kept in the slots, even though there is a natural bow down the short sides when they are loaded.
From peering at the negs I've decided to do away with the flaps during processing. These negs have none of the density weirdness that I'm convinced those flaps introduce - the outer sheet from the reel (4 per reel) suffers the most with the flap causing a pattern - try printing a neg with a delicate light, flat area, and you might have (like I had) a lower density, long patch at either end of the neg about half inch in, with a slight density increase, to the outside side of the decrease - enough to induce madness in printing! And 6 sheets to a reel is doom for the middle and outer sheets in this respect.
I know on 95% of pics this effect is non-visible, but recently I've made negs with such subtlety in some areas that this density thing stands out as bad processing.
Is there any info that says these flaps were introduced on the 'N' reel to actually improve development? I'm convinced that Jobo had a few complaints about sheets coming out (too quick with the lift) along with the bad developing that would cause, so they made the flaps and told everyone things will be better.

 

[Nick Zentena]

The claims used to be on the Jobo USA website plus Jobo tech support also made them. Considering how good Jobo USA tech support used to be I believe them.

 

[richard littlewood]

Think I would have done too. Give it a whirl Nick, and really it does make sense, because the inner sheet is supported by the flap only - ie unlike the other sheets the flap dosn't come between it and the developer, so in effect the inner sheet has un-didrupted (almost) rotary motion, but the outer sheet gets its dev via the spiral edges with the flap pushing the dev. I think that is where the density weirdness comes from. Getting a bit deep is this!