Jobo tanks: Inversion Capacities

I have a few Jobo tanks I've used on my Jobo but am now using for inversion as well. Filling these puppies to the top of the top reel in some can be quite a lot of developer. Weight can build. So I'm thinking I might not want to do that, but instead just fill above the top reel of film, put a spacer film reel above that and let it go. Wonder if anyone else is using these?

Multitank 5 Inversion Capacity: 2750 ML
Multitank 2 Inversion Capacity: 1250 ML for 1 reel, 2 reels would be 1400 ML
Unitank 1520 Inversion Capacity" 500 ML
Unitank 1510 + 1530 Inversion Capacity: 1000 ML

Some how the Multitank 5 seems like a lot to slosh around. Is that just me?

If I was going to develop 5 reels of 35mm I would use the 1520 & 1530. If you can lift the big tank shouldn't be a problem. Using reel (s) as spacers would work. Paterson used the plastic ring to keep the reels seated. You could make a little ring to hold your Jobo reels down, or as you are thinking use the extra reels.
I've never inverted a Jobo tank but I don't why you should worry.

You should just find the smallest tank that fits your needs. The 1510 can do one 135 and 1520 can do 2. You can't go lower than that since you can run the risk of not having enough developer if you dilute a lot.

I would not go to 25xx multi-tank for inversion. They are not made for that.

You do not have to use Jobo. I still have an old Paterson tank and I believe it can hold 3 or 4 135 reels.

Jobo tanks that are made for rotation processing are using reels with much bigger thread spacing than those for manual processing. Some people say that using those bigger tanks for manual processing leads to more uniform development.
I am using old Jobo 2336 for 5x 135 or 6x 120 films that has capacity 2 liters. Very happy with those especially loading film is much smoother! I don't see a problem here.

No issue at all. I use a couple of those tanks for the development of my 4x5 negatives and i see it as a nice workout with 2.5 L developer inside. To prevent to much sloshing i reverse very gently, alweays keeping one hand on the lid of the tank. With rotary processing i still had issues with uneven development, reversing gives me better results.

When i changed from rotary processing to inversion, i also started using XTOL in a replenishment regime to keep the use of chemicals as low as possible. For every film i use, i replenish the stock solution with 75ml of fresh developer, which is even more cost effective then using rotary processing! I never did a side by side comparson, but i do have the impression that using a replenishment system gives me slighter better shadow detail in my negatives on the plus.

Stanislav Boščík said:

Jobo tanks that are made for rotation processing are using reels with much bigger thread spacing than those for manual processing.

Click to expand...

Both series of tanks with their different diameters can be adapted for automated rotary process.

For inversion processing Jobo gave the minimum volume per number of reel. So one could just use a single reel in a multi-reel tank. But for practical reasons I would choose a tank as low as possible, if at hand.

Stanislav Boščík said:

Some people say that using those bigger tanks for manual processing leads to more uniform development.
I am using old Jobo 2336 [...]. Very happy with those especially loading film is much smoother! I don't see a problem here.

Click to expand...

+1

Hello,

last weekend I had to develop three 135 films in a Jobo 2336. Unfortunately Jobo gives you only the filling volumes for minimum and maximum amount of reels. So I litered all my tanks to have the information available when necessary.

All my Jobo tanks listed below have circular grooves in the core that correspond with the height of the reels when partially loaded. One can set a clip on the core to prevent the reels from moving in the tank.

Regards Matti

135 film / filling (ml) / Remark
Paterson Universal 1x 135 / 290 / -
Paterson Universal 2x 135 / 58 / -
jobo 1236 Jet 1x 135 / 260 / -
jobo 1236 Jet 2x 135 / 500 / -
Jobo 2236 Club 1x 135 / 450 / -
Jobo 2236 Club 2x 135 / 800 / -
Jobo 2336 Pro 3x 135 / 1300 / -
Jobo 2336 Pro 4x 135 / 1700 / -
Jobo 2336 Pro 5x 135 / 1900 / -

120 film
Paterson Universal 1(2)x 120 / 500 / 2x 120 on one reel
jobo 1236 Jet 1(2)x 120 / 420 / 2x 120 on one reel
Jobo 2236 Club 1(2)x 120 / 700 / 2x 120 on one reel
Jobo 2336 Pro 1(2)x 120 / 700 / 2x 120 on one reel
Jobo 2336 Pro 2(4)x 120 / 1300 / 2x 120 on one reel
Jobo 2336 Pro 3(6)x 120 / 1900 / 2x 120 on one reel

4x5 sheet film
Paterson Universal 3x 4x5 / 950 / "Taco-Method"
Jobo 2336 Pro 4x 4x5 / 1300 / "Taco-Method"

This is all quite helpful. The question actually involves a number of elements:

1) Whether or not to fill a tank to the brim when using for Inversion processing - no matter the number of reels?
2) Confirming the volume for tanks - because yes, Jobo only talks about the minimum volumes and mostly for the purposes of Rotary Processing.

But I will add I do LOVE the large reels for Multitank 5 for 120 film. The film fits better, and getting 2 films per reel is my usual practice. I'm using the 1500 tanks for 35mm, and these work fine, too. But I found the threading rims on these smaller reels were toward the "too thin" side to work well in my case for threading 120 film.

FWIW, I've switched to Caffenol for my developer of choice and find after a number of outings that I'm getting the bugs out, and beginning to move toward serious, consistent use with it. I've seen some extraordinary claims for Caffenol's ability to render that I can't verify per se, but it does work well enough, and is eco-friendly in my environmentally sensitive locale. Haven't tried replenishment, but that's an idea... way down the list. Top of the list is doing some zone testing to gain a sense of control over the process. Am also using DSLR scanning and Negative Supply's scanning tools which is excellent and quite fast by the way. Happy to at last be back at it in my new home!!!! after a relatively long hiatus to get the house, darkroom, etc. re-equipped and set up.

Thanks, folks!

Huub said:

No issue at all. I use a couple of those tanks for the development of my 4x5 negatives and i see it as a nice workout with 2.5 L developer inside. To prevent to much sloshing i reverse very gently, alweays keeping one hand on the lid of the tank. With rotary processing i still had issues with uneven development, reversing gives me better results.

When i changed from rotary processing to inversion, i also started using XTOL in a replenishment regime to keep the use of chemicals as low as possible. For every film i use, i replenish the stock solution with 75ml of fresh developer, which is even more cost effective then using rotary processing! I never did a side by side comparson, but i do have the impression that using a replenishment system gives me slighter better shadow detail in my negatives on the plus.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much the "Gold Standard" for processing film. In the good old days, this was done in total darkness with deep tanks, it's still done today with dip and dunk. I've gone over to the Jobo system, I enjoy the whirring of the machine etc.
I still have hangers and tanks of all kinds.

JWMster said:

The question actually involves a number of elements:

Whether or not to fill a tank to the brim when using for Inversion processing - no matter the number of reels?

Click to expand...

I do not see any reasons why not only to use the minimum volume to keep just the reels under level that are installed.

(The nitpickers who might fear that in a huge tank too much volume may reside at the tank wall and collumn, may test with water in advance for keeping the level. And in case one does not have a clamp and the reels slide on the collum, one need to install empty reels and check for the resulting level too.)

Almost all my film is developed in the Paterson Super System 4 tanks sized for two 120 or three 135 rolls. I fairly regularly develop two 120 rolls on each 120 reel.
With developer, I always fill my Paterson tanks to the level needed for the maximum number of rolls - one litre, which is not filling them to the brim.
I use my X-Tol (and before that HC-110) in a replenishment regime, so there is no waste.
During the development stage, I start with 30 seconds of continuous rotary agitation, but the rest is inversion agitation (5 seconds every 30 seconds).
All the rest of the steps use continuous rotary agitation with a volume of 650 ml.
By using the same volume of solution each and every time, no matter how many rolls are being developed, I believe I help ensure consistency. I'm also less likely to screw things up due to making the wrong adjustments!

JWMster said:

This is all quite helpful. The question actually involves a number of elements:

1) Whether or not to fill a tank to the brim when using for Inversion processing - no matter the number of reels?
2) Confirming the volume for tanks - because yes, Jobo only talks about the minimum volumes and mostly for the purposes of Rotary Processing.

Click to expand...

I just do not understand the logic of this thread.

There is no point of processing 1 or 2 rolls of film in a tank for 5 reels. You can have the fluid cover the top of the reel (if you can see or estimate), but you could introduce bubbles since most of the tank is empty.

Go to get a smaller tank. Fill the tank to the (inversion) capacity as directed. Be done with it.

RedSun said:

There is no point of processing 1 or 2 rolls of film in a tank for 5 reels. You can have the fluid cover the top of the reel (if you can see or estimate), but you could introduce bubbles since most of the tank is empty.

Click to expand...

How would you get more bubbles than with the same amount of reels in a lower tank?

AgX: Thanks!
RedSun: FWIW, I have a full series of 1500 and 2500 Jobo tanks and don't need more. So your recommendation is to ALWAYS fill all tanks to capacity? Got it. Thanks!
Matt: Got it. Thanks! Agreed.

Let me add that Jobo's own instructions limit the Multitank 5 on my machine to 2 reels of film - which is 4 films. There is no middle size tank between a 1-reel and 3-reel 2500 series tank that I'm aware of as being sold today. This means that in the Multitank 5, a third reel sits empty in 120 usage. You then use 600ML which is great for Rotary Processing, but ends up with a spare, empty reel there as a spacer. Tank holds much more liquid for Inversion, and that's where the concern arises as to the impact of sloshing. Choice of fill is an option here and you can actually use the 3rd reel. Haven't done it yet. Experience will tell if it's a problem or not. All I'm trying to do is minimize bad experience. Guess I'm supposed to enjoy that, too, but somehow... it's IS less satisfying. And that's why - yes, I do try to ask and listen to advice. My thanks to those willing to offer it.

FWIW, I'm now using a Heiland TAS film processor for B&W - which is an inversion rather than rotary processor machine, and I'd assume motor burnout is still likely something of a constraint.

AgX said:

How would you get more bubbles than with the same amount of reels in a lower tank?

Click to expand...

If someone puts the chemical only 1/3 to 1/2 full, then inverts the tank, keep doing it, would bubbles be possible?

Find the right tank. Fill to the capacity as directed. Do not take chance to shake the half full tank. It does not work that way.

RedSun: Sounds right to me: both the risk and the solution. Thanks! BTW: Red Sun a nickname as a sailor?

The 15xx tanks are made for film only, either rotation or inversion. It can only process roll film.

The 25xx tanks are made for larger film and for test prints. It is mainly for rotation, not for inversion. It is too large and heavy for inversion purposes.

Some say the larger 2501 and 2502 reels are better than the 1501 reels since the wider gap between film allows more chemical to get in between the film. Also, with the larger diameter, it allows the processing to be more uniform. Also, the film is more flat on the reel. I use both 1501 and 2502 reels and I can't tell the difference.

If you really want to use 25xx tank for inversion, Jobo makes the smallest tank for film. It can take up to 2 2502 reels or one 2509 reel for sheet film. The inversion capacity is only 560ml. The 2551 you have is not made for inversion purpose.

RedSun: Thanks again. IF I may make a contrary point first before eating some crow, let me say that Jobo-USA actually suggests the 2550 is fine for stand and semi-stand and sells these with inversion lids for that purpose - which happens to be my own, and why I persist in this thread. But I'd agree with your main point that a 2550 tank ain't optimal for inversions of any kind... but what about manual, at-home development is optimal? Not much.... huh? That's not why I do it at least.

My Jobo bible fairly early on became the reference archived Journal article written by David Belew . FWIW, his notes helped me worth through some of my problems then on my initial dive into Jobo some years back... based on his 20 years of doing 20-30 rolls a week in his own for the trade. He categorically states that in his usage, the 1500 reels work fabulous for 35mm, but for 120 he turns to the 2500 reels. Not that 120 film won't fit on a 1500 reel - it will, but it is a thicker emulsion, and it's just easier to slide it into the 2500 reels. My experience exactly. So I've never looked back.... until now. However, those like yourself with greater dexterity can count them selves blessed to have more options as a result.

So it looks like my alternative is to turn back to the Patterson tanks. Here I prefer the Arista reels with the very wide flange feeders. I still have a bunch of these - as that's where like most, I started. The only tank I don't have in my arsenal is a Jobo Expert drum, and that's super whale. So thank you for persisting to make your point a 2nd time because I think I didn't really hear you the first time... and I'm not kidding. Fact is now that you have me thinking it through, I'm pretty sure you're 100% right that I'd be well advised to actually take a 2nd look at the Patterson tank whenever the 1500 series or 2520 tanks won't cover it at full volume. That's not an easy thing for an ornery, geezing kind of cuss like me, but as much as I hate to admit it, I suspect you're spot on with this. So a special shout out of thanks to you, my friend. Persistence is a friend. Thank you for your AND your patience.

From Jobo USA:

Tank System 2500


The 2500 multitank system is a versatile processing system that can process anything from roll film to LF sheet film (with the specialized 2509n 4X5 reel). The 2500 system tanks are designed for rotation processing but can also be used for long, stand, or semi-stand processing. The 2502 and 2509n reels are easy to load, do not require any special loaders, and offer professional-standard quality, with perfect, even, and repeatable results.

The 2500 system tanks are available in the following capacities:

• Multitank 1 #2540 - single 35mm roll
• Multitank 2 #2520 - 2 rolls or up to 6 sheets of 4X5
• Multitank 5 #2550 - 5 rolls of 35mm or 6 rolls of 120 or 12 sheets of 4x5
• Multitank 6 #2560 - 6 rolls of 35mm or 8 rolls of 120 or 12 sheets of 4x5
• Multitank 8 #2560 - 8 rolls of 35mm or 10 rolls of 120 or 18 sheets of 4x5

The two smaller tanks are good for inversion. But the large 2550 you have? It is all up to you.

JWMster said:

AgX: Thanks!
RedSun: FWIW, I have a full series of 1500 and 2500 Jobo tanks and don't need more. So your recommendation is to ALWAYS fill all tanks to capacity? Got it. Thanks!
Matt: Got it. Thanks! Agreed.

Let me add that Jobo's own instructions limit the Multitank 5 on my machine to 2 reels of film - which is 4 films. There is no middle size tank between a 1-reel and 3-reel 2500 series tank that I'm aware of as being sold today. This means that in the Multitank 5, a third reel sits empty in 120 usage. You then use 600ML which is great for Rotary Processing, but ends up with a spare, empty reel there as a spacer. Tank holds much more liquid for Inversion, and that's where the concern arises as to the impact of sloshing. Choice of fill is an option here and you can actually use the 3rd reel. Haven't done it yet. Experience will tell if it's a problem or not. All I'm trying to do is minimize bad experience. Guess I'm supposed to enjoy that, too, but somehow... it's IS less satisfying. And that's why - yes, I do try to ask and listen to advice. My thanks to those willing to offer it.

FWIW, I'm now using a Heiland TAS film processor for B&W - which is an inversion rather than rotary processor machine, and I'd assume motor burnout is still likely something of a constraint.

Click to expand...

I would be using that fancy processor and a Paterson tank. As Matt suggests, you can easily fit 2 rolls of 120 onto a Paterson (or Arista) reel. A quart of XTOL at a time, replenish it, keep a 2 liter batch. Super stable, super cheap, and nothing to harm the environment. As Red Sun shows that 2520 tank will fit the processor as well. You can use caffenol, but I would make a cup of coffee and enjoy it while your Heiland does the work.

mschem: So far IMHO, Caffenol negs are fine. At least as good as XTOL and without the temptation of early death.... 'cause it's made on-demand for 1-use (so far). But I can pre-make the constituent parts. Fairly, I just didn't find anything special about XTOL. Now the less friendly developers? I LOVED those. Not at the end of the story here, but Caffenol is a LOT better when used seriously than a lot of the negatives you see where the ONLY thing claimed is that it was caffenol-ized. Crummy shot, sloppy development, terrible handling, dropped on the floor wet, stepped on... but hey, it's caffenol! WHat fun!" You see a lot of that. So I get this disparagement. Understand completely. Thanks. Yep I have the 2520 and it's a good tank. The Heiland machine? WOW. Love it! Highly recommended. Fact is that it is actually easier to deal with than my small Jobo machine. Looking forward to doing some semi-stand Caffenol-CL with it... and the convenience just opens up processing otherwise I'd not consider... leaving me as a Rotary Processed guy only. Great for C41 - which with a Jobo is soooooooooo easy it really should be everyone's first home developer, but limiting in B&W. Is the limit an issue? Not most of the time. But as someone else here noted, you do move on... and it's good as a choice, and even better to retain the option for when it's needed. Teaches a lot about a regulated, repeatable process. The Heiland has a much smaller footprint, but NO temp control. Bummer on the last.

Stanislav Boščík said:

Jobo tanks that are made for rotation processing are using reels with much bigger thread spacing than those for manual processing. Some people say that using those bigger tanks for manual processing leads to more uniform development.

Click to expand...

Its predecessor wide-reel tank even appeared only in manual versions, that however could be upgraded for rotary processing.

Using a wide-reel tank in inversion processing is thus not far fetched at all.