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

[tim48v]

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?

 

[Wayne]

I think 4 would be handy on special occasions but if there was only one size I would want it to be minimum 6 or 8 sheet capability. I generally do 6 at a time in trays for black and white, and 4 at a time in drums for color (because that's all I can do) and I always wish I could do at least 6.

I would only use something like this for color, as I like tray development of black and white. Its way too convenient to just slosh some juice in a tray and develop anywhere from 1 to 10 sheets.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I put 5 or 6 sheets but it can vary from one to ten.

 

[MattKrull]

Looks awesome. I don't shoot 4x5, nor will I likely ever. So I'm sorry to say I won't be backing you guys, but I'm super stoked that you are making this. Good luck!

 

[MattKing]

You could always offer them either one or two to a package.

 

[esearing]

4 is ok 6 is better. Also for those who like to do stand development the higher dilution volume may not be enough developer for 4 sheets.
For D76 1:1 and HC110 1:63 the volume is adequate. for a six sheeter you have to increase the volume by 3-4 oz per sheet.

I also like the film holder Idea. Easier than finding slots in the dark.

I would assume you could make these for 5x7 and 8x10 sheets as well. Or an 8x10 size that holds 8 4x5 sheets in a single holder.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Have you tested for development uniformity?

Development uniformity is somewhat of a concern.

Michael and 'dpn' make the critical path observation. Edge-to-edge uniformity is the holy grail. Everything else, including sheet capacity, is just secondary convenience.

The problem is the mutually exclusive goals of small solution volume and perfect edge-to-edge uniformity. Any semi-regular or repeated solution movement patterns will manifest in areas of uniform exposure, such as skies. And in tightly contained spaces it's nearly impossible not to set up standing or reflected or directional wave patterns during agitation. Truly random solution movement is very, very difficult to obtain.

That's one reason tray development cautions to use a tray size one bigger than the format being developed. Traditional SS hanger systems in small manual tanks also reflect and cause differential development. And the SS film holders ALL increase turbulence at their edges. Nikor 4x5 SS tanks use inversion, but show edge effects due to centralized inversion flow. Gaseous burst is best, but is still very finicky. Burst calibration can be key, and solution volumes must still be sufficiently above minimal.

I once spoke with a rep at California Stainless Mfg. (an OEM manufacturer for the Arkay line of SS products) who informed me that they had discontinued their 1-gallon nitrogen burst 8x10 tanks because no matter what they did with the gas plenum design, they still had uniformity problems at that small tank size.

Given the challenges, how will your system address edge-to-edge uniformity?

Ken

 

[480sparky]

I generally head out with 5 or 6 film holders, but try to limit myself to 6 sheets. If I shoot more than that, I simply wait until I take more sheets in order to dunk 6 at a time.

What is the possibility of producing different sizes of these things? I.E., a tank for 2, a tank for 4 etc.

 

[summicron1]

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?

Grafmatic backs do 6 sheets at a time -- if I were buying something like this, I would want something that could do a full load all at once.

True, not everyone uses grafmatics, but for those who do, this would be a huge plus,, and catering to a niche would not chase anyone else away.

 

[arealitystudios]

Four sheets at a time would actually be perfect for me. Typically I only develop two to four sheets in an open tray anyway and I find that works nicely. This would be far nicer than tray development as I could do it in a much smaller space.

I will be watching the updates on this one and will most likely be backing it.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

By choice, just one sheet at a time in a large tray for as many sheets as I have. I wouldn't want to do it any other way.

 

[Ari]

This looks very good, I like the idea.
I don't shoot 4x5 any more, but I would welcome a 2-sheet tank for 8x10 film. I have two Jobo 3005 tanks for larger volume processing, but sometimes I just shoot 1 or 2 sheets.
Having a compact tank would be ideal for such minimal requirements, and would save me from having to wait until I shoot at least 3 more sheets before I can process my film.
With that in mind, I think your 4-sheet tank is an excellent idea. Jobo and others already supply 6-, 10- or 12-sheet tanks.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Apart from saving chemistry, I'm not quite sure what this offers that my Combi-plan doesn't offer.

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

Yes,I think four are enough and your system looks well designed and simple to operate.However,I fell that my current method in a Jobo tank with a dobo CPE2 is hard to beat but yours hopefully a lot more economical.odd luck with your project.Wish I had known about it before writing my book.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Four sheets is enough, but six sheets would be better, especially if total solution is kept to 500ml or slightly under.

I like the simplicity and for travelling with minimal equipment space requirements and being able to develop 4x5” sheet film on the run, this could be ideal.

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.

If the film holders were placed in landscape format, instead of portrait format, that could eliminate film movement issues caused by gravity or floating to the surface because of their buoyancy. This would require your unit to be turned 90º, just a thought. There could be issues with doing that, like scratching of the film by the guides.

The turbulator, or plunger rod, looks pretty much the same size as the Patterson chemical stirrer I have had for decades. My Patterson chemical stirrer has a 30mm diameter crushing base, but most importantly, the handle is designed to work well with wet or wet gloved hands. That handle design is so good, it has meant I have never looked for anything else to mix and crush chemicals.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/40303-REG/Paterson_PTP245_Chemical_Stirrer.html

As someone who has mixed almost countless film and paper solutions from raw chemistry over the last three decades with a hand chemistry stirrer with a well designed handle, the holdability of your turbulator, looks like it could be bit iffy with a wet or damp rod.

With regard to solution volume size, I have been using my Jobo CPE2 for around 30 years, with 370ml of solution for six sheets (four works better) I always round up to 400ml and have had nary a problem with E6, C41, and all manner of B&W negative processes.

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

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

Mick.

 

[Roger Cole]

Apart from saving chemistry, I'm not quite sure what this offers that my Combi-plan doesn't offer.

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

Well for one thing, you'd be able to buy this new. The Combi-plan is no longer available new.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Fair point, product support and continuity is important.

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

 

[Mick Fagan]

Apart from saving chemistry, I'm not quite sure what this offers that my Combi-plan doesn't offer.

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

A Turbolator.

Mick.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

The Combi-plan comes with two Turbolators, one on the end of each of my arms. ;-)

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

 

[Ian Grant]

I said 6 as that's the multiples I can process at the moment, I have 2 JOBO 2000 tanks and each takes one or two spirals of 6 sheets, 1 litre chemistry per spiral.

A minimum of 4 sheets though ideally. I like the film holder idea but what about the anti-halation backing to the films which need to ge removed during processing. I have a Dallan Stainless 5x4 steel tank that uses similar holders (although slightly curved) but they have the centers cut away for this reason and only take one sheet. This may be an issue you need to address as films from different companies differ in their approach to this backing layer.

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I said 6 as that's the multiples I can process at the moment, I have 2 JOBO 2000 tanks and each takes one or two spirals of 6 sheets, 1 litre chemistry per spiral.

A minimum of 4 sheets though ideally. I like the film holder idea but what about the anti-halation backing to the films which need to ge removed during processing. I have a Dallan Stainless 5x4 steel tank that uses similar holders (although slightly curved) but they have the centers cut away for this reason and only take one sheet. This may be an issue you need to address as films from different companies differ in their approach to this backing layer.

Ian

Why does the anti-halation backing need to be removed? It seems to me,the longer the wet time,even counting the final was,the less of it is left.But what does it hurt anyway?:confused:

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Four sheets is fine. Just as long as you make it four sheets of 5x7.

There are plenty of options for 4x5 developing. You'd really have something if you took this design down the 5x7 path instead and it gave very even results. More than 16 ounces would be required, but not that much more.

 

[Ian Grant]

Why does the anti-halation backing need to be removed? It seems to me,the longer the wet time,even counting the final was,the less of it is left.But what does it hurt anyway?:confused:

There are dyes used in the backing layer of some films these are often destroyed in development and fixing they need to be removed efficiently the layer isn't normally removed but with some films it's water soluble. This may also mean two sheets stick together running the higher risk of scratching trying to separate them.

Ian

 

[wildbill]

I think I found the solution:

View attachment 121360

(In all seriousness, I've backed the project. I'm optimistic, and 4 sheets would be perfect for me.)

That's a nice set up.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I put 5 or 6 sheets but it can vary from one to ten.

I use a Jobo 3010 Expert Drum. I am not interested in a new film processing system because I am very happy with what I have.