Paterson tank and taco-method for 4X5 developing

[Clumsy Eddie]

Has anyone had success or failure using the taco method and a Paterson developing tank for 4X5 B&W negatives? I am working on setting up a darkroom in the cellar, but I have to get the stairs fixed and some lighting installed first.

Thank you to all who reply.

With best regards,

Stephen-

 

[Pierre Barrellon]

Hi, I used this method twice.
I shoot Fomapan 100 only (I am learning large format photo), so I can't tell if the emulsion is softer than other brands, but i found it prone to scratching.
Taco style method needs careful handling to avoid to scratch the negative, as the shape given to the film make angles of the sheet coming close to the emulsion.
I have had one successful try, and one batch whith scratches due to inadequate handling.

I suggest to use rubber bands that are loose enough not to put the edges of the sheet in contact, and to be careful either when curving the film, putting them in the tank, and doing the reverse operations.

Hope it helps.

 

[Matt Fattori]

Don't waste your time and film; get an SP-445 developing tank. Works great.

 

[Kirks518]

I do the taco method (also with Paterson tanks). I strongly suggest you DO NOT use rubber bands. Go down to the local Walgreens/CVS/WalMart/etc, and get hairbands. I have found rubber bands don't allow and flow where they touch the negative, and even though it's not the side that the image is on, it causes a weird mark on the back side of the image. I found the hairbands allow for developer to touch the back side, avoiding the lines.

 

[mrred]

Worked well for me. I don't know what's up with that comment, Matt.

 

[vdonovan]

Like Matt, I tried the taco method and achieved uneven results. I switched to a Mod54, which I've been using for about three years. Just recently I got an SP-445 and it is now my favorite processor for 4x5. It's inexpensive, easy to load (easier than the taco method), and has given me perfect results. I would recommend it for anyone getting started in processing 4x5.

 

[mrred]

I'm not disputing the alternatives, but as an infrequent 4x5 shooter (I don't own my own camera), the taco method is right for me. I've never gotten uneven developing, but that could just as easy be the developer you use may not be well suited to this arrangement. IDK.

 

[Kirks518]

I'm not disputing the alternatives, but as an infrequent 4x5 shooter (I don't own my own camera), the taco method is right for me. I've never gotten uneven developing, but that could just as easy be the developer you use may not be well suited to this arrangement. IDK.

+1

I personally don't feel that $87 is inexpensive for a plastic tank. If anything, the Mod54 makes more sense to me if you already have the Paterson.

 

[Michael W]

Hi, I used this method twice.
I shoot Fomapan 100 only (I am learning large format photo), so I can't tell if the emulsion is softer than other brands, but i found it prone to scratching.
Taco style method needs careful handling to avoid to scratch the negative, as the shape given to the film make angles of the sheet coming close to the emulsion.
I have had one successful try, and one batch whith scratches due to inadequate handling.

Same here - got scratching, gave up after two attempts, would have been after one if I was smarter.
MOD54 works well.

 

[mrred]

I really can't see the taco causing scratches.....the emulsion is on the inside. This is most likely a handling issue and would be a problem no matter what development holder you use.

 

[revdoc]

Foma 100 scratches easily and requires care in handling. It's only the emulsion side that has that problem, so avoiding contact with that surface is enough to avoid scratches. (Has been for me, anyway.)

I'm surprised that Kirks518 had issues with marks on the back side of the film. That surface is only coated with plain gelatin that contains anti-halation dye, so short of making a physical mark on the gelatin, there should be no issues on that surface once the dye leaches out during fixing and washing

 

[pdeeh]

Used taco quite few times.
No problems with uneven development, nor with emulsion scratches save on very odd occasions in the very corners where it wouldn't be seen unless you are printing "full frame". But I suspect this was to do with agitation technique rather than being an intrinsic shortcoming of the process
I also used hairbands (sometimes called pony bands) and again on very odd occasions saw a faint mark on the rear or the film, and probably because I was using slightly "abrasive" ponybands. But then again, I could never see it in a finished print or scan.

$87 is only "inexpensive" when you have $87 to spare.

The fact that some people have problems with a process doesn't invalidate the process. It's a bit like the "reel wars" - the fact that some people can't load a Paterson reel doesn't mean Paterson reels are useless.

OP - try it and see. It suits plenty of people. But it may not suit you, and the only way to find out is so try.

 

[Pierre Barrellon]

I of course agree that it is better to use hairbands instead of rubber bands. As french is my native language, I just didn't know the word "hairband"...

Taco doesn't cause scratches, but you have to be careful not to scratch the emulsion with the corner of the sheet film, either whent you curve it or when you remove the hairband. Finally, as the sheets are quite free to move in the tank, it is possible to have scratches during agitation.

However, I am confident that if one often uses this technique, he will obviously master it and then get consistently good result with it.

 

[Michael W]

Finally, as the sheets are quite free to move in the tank, it is possible to have scratches during agitation.

That's when it happens - corner of the film scratches the emulsion as it touches. I don't see any logical reason to do taco processing now that there are affordable products like MOD54 on the market. If people are happy with taco and want to keep doing it then I'm in no way saying they shouldn't. However I do want to caution people who are contemplating it, like the OP, of the potential problems.

 

[Kirks518]

I'm surprised that Kirks518 had issues with marks on the back side of the film. That surface is only coated with plain gelatin that contains anti-halation dye, so short of making a physical mark on the gelatin, there should be no issues on that surface once the dye leaches out during fixing and washing

I think it was because the rubber bands aren't porous, and don't allow the dev/wash/fix to get to the layer, preventing the dye to leach out. It was a weird 'line', and it took me forever to figure out what was causing it. But I have had no issues once switching to hairbands.

And Pierre, I only know what they're called because I have a teenage daughter!

 

[mwdake]

I use the taco method for 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 B & W film. The few times I have tried it I used hair bands and was careful, no problems or scratches.

 

[StephenT]

I've tried the taco method, two sheets in a Paterson tank without folding, and a single sheet without folding. The single sheet always developed well - I had issues with the other methods. I now only use a Paterson for a single sheet - I use other methods for more than one sheet.

 

[Matt Fattori]

Worked well for me. I don't know what's up with that comment, Matt.

I suppose it depends on the user but I found the taco method to be a bit finicky and sometimes gave me scratches(using hair bands). Considering the price of film I'd rather have a no hassle/no surprises system, but to each his own of course.

 

[KinoGrafx]

Hi-
I use taco all the time for 4x5 (4 sheets in a 4-reel stainless tank) and never have had any issues- one good tip is to slightly roll the hairbands up or down on each sheet halfway through the fix,and again during the wash, to avoid base-side marks.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

I use the Mod 54 adapter in a Paterson tank. Works great for me. Holds six sheets of 4x5".

 

[Leigh B]

I have found rubber bands don't allow an[y] flow where they touch the negative, and even though it's not the side that the image is on, it causes a weird mark on the back side of the image. I found the hairbands allow for developer to touch the back side, avoiding the lines.

The issue on the back of the negative is the water-soluble anti-halation coating.
It's an opaque dye that prevents fogging from light reflecting off the film holder.

It should wash off completely when in contact with any liquid, e.g. pre-soak, developer, and all later baths.
That's usually obvious when you dump the tank because it imparts a dark color to the liquid.

I would expect any remaining when the negs enter the final wash to be removed at that step.

If any remains, it can be removed by simply re-washing the negatives.

- Leigh

 

[Nige]

I've done lots as taco's but only do 2 at a time as the rubber bands I use suit that (would need smaller ones to do more but have never bothered to try). Some films do leave a mark on the backside where the rubber band has stopped liquid getting at it but I just move them half way through the fixer stage as mentioned above and they disappear. Got a SP-445 now so will be using that but I've never had any issues with the taco method.

 

[BAC1967]

I've tried the taco method, two sheets in a Paterson tank without folding, and a single sheet without folding. The single sheet always developed well - I had issues with the other methods. I now only use a Paterson for a single sheet - I use other methods for more than one sheet.

That's how I do it, one or two sheets in the tank without folding, emulsion side facing in. have never had a problem doing it this way. With two sheets the ends butt up against each other and for me it has never slipped up onto the other to cause problems. You will get water/chemistry on both sides of the negative.

 

[iamthejeff]

How do you agitate with the taco method in a paterson tank? I guess the only option would be inversions, but I'd be afraid of knocking the sheets over (maybe not possible?)

 

[Skiver101]

I develop two 4x5 negs at a time in a Paterson tank - I epoxied two thin pieces of plastic vertically; at opposite sides inside the tank. The negs are held apart beautifully and I have no worries about movement even during ''rigorous'' inversions.
However, the one flaw I have discovered is that I can't use hot water to clean the tank as this softens the epoxy and the plastic rails detach (but a 5 minute repair fixes that).
I have currently run through up to twenty negs using this method, and apart from that one occassion when I overlooked the water temp during a clean, this method is great, and I'm very happy with the results. I can re-use the 800ml of developer solution several times as the film area developed is only 2 times 4x5 for each immersion.

JP