New 4x5 film processing system on Kickstarter: $47!

Gerry M · Dec 16, 2015

I'm a backer. I hope this reaches production. I process 4 sheets at a time and this could save me chemical costs. Also, for me, it could be more convenient than my present tray processing. Keeping my fingers crossed!

Wayne · Dec 16, 2015

You could also save chemical costs by developing more than 4 sheets at a time.

Ashfaque · Dec 17, 2015

If possible, please try to make it modular, so that it can take 4x5, 5x7, and so on.

Nige · Dec 17, 2015

Mick Fagan said:
One last question, your link suggests that certain countries will not be shipped to, is Australia a ship to country?

Mick.

Yep, need an answer to this before I sign up.

jeffreyg · Dec 17, 2015

I use film holders and the old Kodak tanks that will hold up to eight and takes 55oz of solutions. I use three tanks (dev., water stop, fix and then wash out the water tank for clear). It's very easy to load the holders and they hang in my film washer as well as on a line over my sink to dry.

How would your system be used for washing and drying?

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

removed account4 · Dec 17, 2015

tim48v said:
We've just launched a kickstarter for a new sheet film processing system. It will processes four sheets of 4x5 in 16 oz of solution. Details at:

Dead Link Removed

We're currently working on the next prototype, so send us your comments and suggestions.
The biggest question: is a four sheet capacity enough?

hi tim48v

the video looks good, and the end product looks perfect for a lot of photographers !
unfortunately, i process between 10 and 30 sheets at once in open trays shuffling in the dark
never have troubles with uniformity, scratches &c &c
been doing this for IDK 20 years, so it wouldn't be much use for me
BUT
if you made one that could take multi formats ( up to 8x10 )
and more than a handful of sheets it might be useful to a lot of people !

good luck with your product !
john

wildbill · Dec 17, 2015

jeffreyg said:
I use film holders and the old Kodak tanks that will hold up to eight and takes 55oz of solutions. I use three tanks (dev., water stop, fix and then wash out the water tank for clear). It's very easy to load the holders and they hang in my film washer as well as on a line over my sink to dry.

How would your system be used for washing and drying?

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

check out my tank capacities/volumes:http://www.vinnywalsh.com/#!products/c2jd
6 sheets of 4x5 uses 1 Liter.

teejay · Dec 17, 2015

Looks great - I'm in !

Doc W · Dec 17, 2015

I have a Jobo system but it is an old one and parts are getting harder to find. One of the main considerations would be cost, of course, but surely this system will be a lot less than a Jobo because it doesn't require motors, heaters, etc. This new tank is appealing to me and I wonder how many of you are in the same situation.

The main problem I have with developing film is temperature. My darkroom is in a part of the house that is subject to wild temperature swings and trying to keep the room at a constant temperature would be very expensive. This is why I started to use the Jobo, i.e., the temperature in the water bath is constant regardless of the room. I am sure that more than a few of you have exactly the same problem.

I use the Jobo for large format but I still develop roll film in an inversion tank. To keep the temperature constant, I put my chemistry bottles in a large container of tempered water. During development, I hold the inversion tank in tempered water in between agitations. It works fine. I expect that I could do exactly the same thing with this system.

The only problem I have with this system (and this would be the same with the Jobo) is that I regularly use HC-110 at the higher dilutions (D, E, and F). Allowing for 4 ml of HC-110 per sheet of 4x5, I would be able to do only 3 sheets with dilution D, 2 with dilution E, and one with dilution F. However, I often have to reduce the number of sheets with the Jobo for the same reason. Depending on the final cost of this system, I suppose 2 or 3 of these could solve the problem of numbers.

Also, it looks like it would not be all that much of a problem to scale it up to 5x7 and 8x10.

Overall, I think that this is really a great start and I may get one of these to complement my Jobo, when available. In general, I love low-tech solutions and this is a beauty.

MattKing · Dec 17, 2015

Doc W:

4 ml of concentrate per sheet of 4x5 extrapolates out to 16ml of concentrate per 8x10, roll of 135-36, roll of 120 etc., etc.

Kodak's capacity recommendations only kick in at 6 ml per 8x10. roll of 135-36, roll of 120 etc.

Don't you really mean 4 ml of concentrate per 4 sheets of 4x5? (Iwould personally use 6ml per 4 sheets)

Ari · Dec 17, 2015

You should also post this on LFPF.

EDIT: I see you've done so already; carry on.

Wayne · Dec 17, 2015

Doc W said:
I still develop roll film in an inversion tank. To keep the temperature constant, I put my chemistry bottles in a large container of tempered water. During development, I hold the inversion tank in tempered water in between agitations. It works fine. I expect that I could do exactly the same thing with this system.

If I used one of these I would want to do that too. So may I suggest a weighted base as an option, so it can stand on its own partially submerged in a tempering bath?

DREW WILEY · Dec 17, 2015

I can do up to twelve sheets at a time in 500ml in a tray, though if it's something fussy, around 6-8 is more realistic. So it would be nice if
these devices could gang together or have more slots to allow more sheets in one session. But I never have a problem with uneven development. That was a common problem with the old Combi-Plan inversion tanks.

Doc W · Dec 17, 2015

MattKing said:
Doc W:

4 ml of concentrate per sheet of 4x5 extrapolates out to 16ml of concentrate per 8x10, roll of 135-36, roll of 120 etc., etc.

Kodak's capacity recommendations only kick in at 6 ml per 8x10. roll of 135-36, roll of 120 etc.

Don't you really mean 4 ml of concentrate per 4 sheets of 4x5? (Iwould personally use 6ml per 4 sheets)

At my age, the memory is not what it used to be, but I think I recall going over this ages ago. I don't want to hijack the OP's thread, so I started a (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Hustarelli · Dec 17, 2015

What a great set-up. I've been using the taco method for a max of 4 sheets in a 3 reel Paterson, but this would use a bit less chemistry. Good stuff.

Doc W · Dec 17, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
I can do up to twelve sheets at a time in 500ml in a tray, though if it's something fussy, around 6-8 is more realistic. So it would be nice if
these devices could gang together or have more slots to allow more sheets in one session. But I never have a problem with uneven development. That was a common problem with the old Combi-Plan inversion tanks.

I gave up long ago on processing more than one sheet at a time in a tray. I guess I am just naturally clumsy, but I did scratch negatives and when I did, it was ALWAYS the best neg in the batch. I envy those who can shuffle through a stack and never scratch anything.

tim48v · Dec 17, 2015

Everyone,
Thanks for the comments! Please keep them coming.

Let me address what I can:

As for 'edge to edge' uniformity, we haven't seen any problems. Note, I'm probably not as picky as many of you and our testing has been limited to E-6 and D-76. We're putting a plan together to shoot a series of controlled shots using several different films and developers and then scan them looking for issues.

We have a 5x7/8x10 combo version sketched out (4 sheets of 5x7 or 2 sheets of 8x10).
However, first, we need to get this project launched and in production. Then we'll need to do more market research to make sure there's a demand. (Launching a kickstarter takes a lot of effort.)

As for the anti-halation backing getting removed: the only issue I've seen is the chemistry not getting to the film under the slots that hold the film. (Mainly on just one of the prototype film holders; the others are fine.) This is one reason we're making the slots wider. The rest of the film seems fine. I would think that the JOBO rotary system would have the same issue (or lack thereof) as it appears to me that the film is in firm contact with the tube.

To wash, I've just removed the lid and let it flood. One could insert a tube/hose down the fill/drain chamber as well.

"Ship to" has gotten more complicated than I expected. Mainly because Kickstarter hids the list until you select your reward level. I've updated the comments on Kickstarter addressing this in more detail but basically we'll ship anywhere.

I love the look of the Patterson stirrer; need to get one myself. Of course, with a minor changes, our turbulator could do double duty.

Please continue to spread the word to your fellow photographers.

Thanks again,

Timothy

Mick Fagan · Dec 17, 2015

Well, if my tank arrives before we head to the remote Kimberley region of Australia next year, I'll be a very happy chappy.

Looking at the amount of backers and pledges, I think this will meet it's minimum subscription by the end of this week.

Better not hang around Nige, you may miss out.

Mick.

michaelorr · Dec 17, 2015

Mick Fagan said:
Rather than push for six sheets and dodgy evenness of developing, I would prefer four sheets and very even developing. If going to six sheets is pushing your agitation system, or enlarges the minimum tank volume over 500ml, stay with four sheets.

Having a little experience with injection moulding, I agree that the film holders are going to be tricky to manufacture, thin is difficult.

Mick.

I like all of Mick's points. Especially the sheet counts discussion.

For the film holders, why not make those with 3D printer? I work at an Army electronics lab. We have produced battery boxes for hand held soldier radios with the 3D printer. They come out really nice.

I kicked in earlier today. Eager to see how this comes out and trying the thing out. At this time I use the BTZS tubes.

>michaelorr

Nige · Dec 17, 2015

Mick Fagan said:
Better not hang around Nige, you may miss out.

Mick.

I'm in!

Mick Fagan · Dec 18, 2015

Nige said:
I'm in!

Great, we'll be able to compare.

One thing I have thought about is washing. Now I'm not saying I would do this all of the time, but I have a Jobo Cascade film washer. By making up another lid, I should be able to attach my Cascade washer and see if it does an agitated force wash as it does with the normal Jobo tanks.

But in reality, this unit would be as a back up for my Jobo. If it works well with even development, as a minimal space to pack, travelling developing system for 4x5" film.

Mick.

tim48v · Dec 21, 2015

There have been some concerns about uniform development. (I shoot mainly E6 transparencies and haven't seen a problem but that doesn't mean much.)

Obviously there are too many combinations for us to empirically test every possibility. So here's the question: What combination of film/developer is the "worst case?"

I realize that this is more art than science but there must be some reasonably common but challenging combinations that would be good test cases for us.

Suggestions?

Joe VanCleave · Dec 21, 2015

I would also suggest testing with landscape images that have large areas of empty sky, as this is where one often sees traces of uneven development.

Some people use dilute developers and semi-stand development (minimal agitation) to control excess contrast, the idea being that the shadows continue to develop slowly, while the highlights become exhausted of developer (due to lack of agitation) and are hence limited in how dense they can become. This is a good technique to use for scenes of an extreme brightness range.

With this new tank, I'd assume you would do an initial agitation with the pump device, so as to get good initial mixing, then let it sit for an extended time. Reference other threads pertaining to using Rodinol and semi-stand development for times and dilutions; I seem to remember 1:50 and 1:100 for 30 minutes to 1 hour are commonly used.

~Joe

Ken Nadvornick · Dec 21, 2015

Since any test is meaningless without something against which to compare, I would also suggest running a control sheet for each test. These would need to be identically exposed using a setup guaranteed to provide perfectly uniform exposure across the sheet surfaces.

The control sheet would then need to be developed by a process that guaranteed perfectly even development across its surface. It may be necessary to seek out a professional nitrogen burst lab to reliably process the control sheets.

With both test and control samples then in hand, meaningful comparisons should be easily accomplished.

Best of luck with your product testing program. I'm anxious to see the results.

Ken

tim48v · Jan 12, 2016

Everyone,
In case you missed the updates on Kickstarter: we've decided to go with an inversion agitation system. Details at Dead Link Removed

We've also posted some sample images on Kickstarter; larger files are at: www.stearmanpress.com under the 'photo tech' page.

Tim

New 4x5 film processing system on Kickstarter: $47!

How many sheets of 4x5 film do you typically processes at a time?

1 or 2

3 or 4

5 or 6

7 or 8

more than 8

Gerry M

Wayne

Ashfaque

Nige

jeffreyg

removed account4

wildbill

teejay

Doc W

MattKing

Moderator

Ari

Advertiser

Wayne

DREW WILEY

Doc W

Hustarelli

Doc W

tim48v

Mick Fagan

michaelorr

Nige

Mick Fagan

tim48v

Joe VanCleave

Ken Nadvornick

tim48v

New 4x5 film processing system on Kickstarter: $47!

How many sheets of 4x5 film do you typically processes at a time?

1 or 2

3 or 4

5 or 6

7 or 8

more than 8

Moderator

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency