Paterson tanks and poor contrast/dev issues

[ryanmills]

For the past year I have been tinkering with two Paterson tanks, one that does a single roll of a 120 and one that does 5. I have used both tri-x 400 w/ hc110 and tmax100/400 w/ TmaxRS. I use spin agitation for both tanks. I do the first 30 second of constant agitation then 10 seconds every 30. Cameras used are a RZ67 Pro II w/ 110mm and 501c w/80mm, scans are done on a v700. I presoak for about 30 seconds, all distilled water till the wash (final is distilled with photoflo). Side note I can use the same development times for 4x5 i do in trays with TMAX films and dev and get two very different results. Im very happy with my results from trays, i get great contrast.

I cant seem to get a good amount of contrast. Early on i got streaking in dense negatives from agitating too fast. So i slowed down to light slow agitations, about 90 degrees back and forth for 5 twists. There is good even development but the negs are horridly flat. I'm getting the same thing with two different film development combos and on two different cameras. I know its got to be something with my development. I'm wondering if my process for the Patterson is wrong. First should I dunk vs filling it can take 15 to 30 seconds to fill the 5 reel tank. Would longer initial agitation add contrast? Do i need to agitate more often or longer? I thought about trying to invert it but that 5 reel tank is a beast to tip. Anyone seem any glaring mistakes or something I might have over looked?

With trays I know that's pretty constant agitation and maybe the curve I like needs that. I cant quite afford a jobo yet so im thinking about getting a uniroller. Is it worth trying with a 5 reel tank? Can I agitate back and forth constantly to get the same thing?

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to APUG!

I have never had satisfactory results with "spin" agitation. I'd be willing to bet that you are suffering the effects of local exhaustion of developer.

I use a combination of inversion agitation and roller agitation (on a Beseler base), but my largest tank holds a maximum of two 120/220 reels.

 

[ryanmills]

Welcome to APUG!

I have never had satisfactory results with "spin" agitation. I'd be willing to bet that you are suffering the effects of local exhaustion of developer.

I use a combination of inversion agitation and roller agitation (on a Beseler base), but my largest tank holds a maximum of two 120/220 reels.

Yea, i think the roller is next. Anyone using a uni with a the large patterson tank that fits 5 rolls of 120? Im sure I can ring something to keep it on the rollers but i'm worried it might be to heavy to spin correctly.

 

[MattKing]

Yea, i think the roller is next. Anyone using a uni with a the large patterson tank that fits 5 rolls of 120? Im sure I can ring something to keep it on the rollers but i'm worried it might be to heavy to spin correctly.

I use heavy-duty elastic bands to create a "channel" for the rollers.

Remember that if you are using rotary agitation you can consider using much less developer - approximately 1/2 - which cuts the weight considerably.

Be sure to watch the developer capacity numbers, and avoid short developing times.

The 2 or 3 roll tanks are a lot less awkward, and if you use inversion, you can load two 120 films on each reel.

 

[MartinP]

If you put a couple of strips of wood on your bench (to allow clearance for the wide end of the tank) then you can roll the tank steadily to and fro. Rather boring, but easier to do a quick comparison without needing to source a heavy-duty electric roller.

For the smaller tank, just use inversions after closing the lid like a tupperware sandwich-box, 'farting' some air out of it. Keep your hand over the lid end, so that the chemicals don't knock the cap off, and give the tank a third of a rotation every time you set it down on the bench, to avoid the rush of chemicals always being in the same position during the inversions.

And yes, I'd agree with the rotation-agitation idea not being very clever. Even being optimistic about it, the outside of the reel moves far more, and more quickly, than the centre - so the longer the film is, the larger the difference from one end to the other.

 

[gone]

The easiest thing to do is try inverting the tank(s) for your agitation instead of spinning them. I wouldn't use a 5 reel tank personally. If something goes wrong, it goes wrong 5 times. I develop all of my film one reel at a time, and just like it that way. Easier to isolate issues. Try some D76 w/ your Tri-X, it's a classic combination and very forgiving if you don't have the times/temps on the money. Are your shutter times good? Those are old cameras, and an inexpensive electronic shutter tester ($40 or so) will tell you exactly what speed they're running at. If your shutter is on spec, if your metering is good, if your times and temps are good, you will get good contrast w/ the Tri-X and D76 using the inversion method. I always keep a yellow filter on my lenses to help w/ the contrast thing and to darken skies.

 

[ryanmills]

The idea using wood sounds easy enough, should have some scraps to tinker with. Question is how far to roll, im not sure how many revolutions it would make before it reverses.

 

[jp498]

I've mostly used Paterson tanks for 20 years without problem. I do agitation with inversion. Gently invert it and right it, like 5 seconds for each step. I do the first minute non-stop and then one or two inversions once per minute for the remainder of development (I use a different developer which requires 13.5 minutes for me). I'm using a tank which holds 3 120 reels or 5 35mm reels.

 

[CatLABS]

I use spin agitation for both tanks.

Side note I can use the same development times for 4x5 i do in trays with TMAX films and dev and get two very different results. Im very happy with my results from trays, i get great contrast.

As folks have already noted - twirl agitation went out with 8tracks. Inversion is your best bet in any case, unless you are using a specifically designed rotation system.
There is no way to compare sheet film in trays to roll film in tanks, even if the times and chems are the same, the method is drastically different, and the material is different (albeit in a minor way).

I'm getting the same thing with two different film development combos and on two different cameras. I know its got to be something with my development.

It might be a coincidence that both cameras have a similar problem, or your 4X5 camera shutter might be way off, but its easier to try and eliminate the processing.

First should I dunk vs filling it can take 15 to 30 seconds to fill the 5 reel tank.

No - over 10 min dev time 15-30 seconds have little or no consequence, and the risk/trouble is more then its worth. The tanks are well designed to be used in daylight, and there is no reason not to.

With trays I know that's pretty constant agitation and maybe the curve I like needs that. I cant quite afford a jobo yet so im thinking about getting a uniroller. Is it worth trying with a 5 reel tank? Can I agitate back and forth constantly to get the same thing?

Inversion will be the place to start as noted above. If you want to save some time, pain and money, you can swap your 10 reel tank (that is your 5 reel tank, which can hold 2 rolls of 120 on each reel) for a Jobo 1500 system tank, which with the same capacity for film will require about 45% liquid of what you are using now, if you choose to rotate, or about 15-20% less if you use it with inversion. Either way, the tank itself will not improve your contrast.

Rotating paterson tanks on a rollerbase, especially the larger onces carries an inherit risk of the rubber lid popping off during process, and loosing all the liquid quite past (jobo tanks to not have that risk), and as the tanks are conical you need some creative modifications (as already noted) to get it rolling straight.

 

[David Allen]

For the past year I have been tinkering with two Paterson tanks, one that does a single roll of a 120 and one that does 5. I have used both tri-x 400 w/ hc110 and tmax100/400 w/ TmaxRS. I use spin agitation for both tanks. I do the first 30 second of constant agitation then 10 seconds every 30. Cameras used are a RZ67 Pro II w/ 110mm and 501c w/80mm, scans are done on a v700. I presoak for about 30 seconds, all distilled water till the wash (final is distilled with photoflo). Side note I can use the same development times for 4x5 i do in trays with TMAX films and dev and get two very different results. Im very happy with my results from trays, i get great contrast.

I cant seem to get a good amount of contrast. Early on i got streaking in dense negatives from agitating too fast. So i slowed down to light slow agitations, about 90 degrees back and forth for 5 twists. There is good even development but the negs are horridly flat. I'm getting the same thing with two different film development combos and on two different cameras. I know its got to be something with my development. I'm wondering if my process for the Patterson is wrong. First should I dunk vs filling it can take 15 to 30 seconds to fill the 5 reel tank. Would longer initial agitation add contrast? Do i need to agitate more often or longer? I thought about trying to invert it but that 5 reel tank is a beast to tip. Anyone seem any glaring mistakes or something I might have over looked?

With trays I know that's pretty constant agitation and maybe the curve I like needs that. I cant quite afford a jobo yet so im thinking about getting a uniroller. Is it worth trying with a 5 reel tank? Can I agitate back and forth constantly to get the same thing?

First, there is nothing wrong with your Paterson tanks, I have been using them since the beginning of time.

The 6 primary things that effect contrast are:

• • Speed of film - are the ISO 100 films just as flat as the ISO 400 films? - at any given dilution of developer / development time, the ISO 100 films should demonstrate more contrast than the ISO 400 films.
  • Developer dilution – if your negatives are flat mixing the developer at a stronger rate (i.e. using HC110 dilution B as opposed to HC 110 dilution H) will give increased contrast.
  • Development time – the longer you develop the higher the contrast.
  • Temperature – higher temperatures will deliver higher contrast for any given fixed development time (although, personally, I prefer to always have all of my chemicals at 20 C).
  • Agitation – using the spin agitation (as others have mentioned) is no longer recommended as a good agitation method. I use the inversion method (for all tank sizes) and, regardless of the various developers that I have used over the years, always use 4 gentle inversions over the first 30 seconds (followed by a sharp tap to the bottom of the tank before standing on the bench) and then one gentle inversion every 30 seconds (followed by a sharp tap to the bottom of the tank before standing on the bench). The reason for the difference you are seeing between tray development of sheet films and tank development of roll films is because the sheet film is receiving constant agitation and the roll films (with your current spin agitation) are receiving almost no agitation.
  • Exposure, reducing exposure and increasing development will automatically deliver high contrast (albeit with loss of shadow detail – whether this is an issue for you is something only you can decide). To see what kind of results this delivers, check out the work of Daido Moriyama and Anders Petersen.

Just a note on streaking. You will find on this site that there are as many opinions about presoaking as there are members of APUG. I always use a two minute presoak and have never had streaking problems (even when processing 35mm TechPan film at high dilutions of HC 110 for relatively short times). Furthermore, whenever a friend, colleague or student has approached me with streaking problems, I have always recommended a minimum 2 minute presoak and this has always solved the problem (bear in mind that this covers people using a wide range of films, developers and agitation techniques).

• I hope you find your solution. My suggestion would be to:
• • Start by moving to an inversion form of agitation.
  • Increase the development time in 20% increments.
  • If this does not deliver the results that you desire, then increase the strength of the developer.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

 

[ryanmills]

First, there is nothing wrong with your Paterson tanks, I have been using them since the beginning of time.

The 6 primary things that effect contrast are:

• • Speed of film - are the ISO 100 films just as flat as the ISO 400 films? - at any given dilution of developer / development time, the ISO 100 films should demonstrate more contrast than the ISO 400 films.
  • Developer dilution – if your negatives are flat mixing the developer at a stronger rate (i.e. using HC110 dilution B as opposed to HC 110 dilution H) will give increased contrast.
  • Development time – the longer you develop the higher the contrast.
  • Temperature – higher temperatures will deliver higher contrast for any given fixed development time (although, personally, I prefer to always have all of my chemicals at 20 C).
  • Agitation – using the spin agitation (as others have mentioned) is no longer recommended as a good agitation method. I use the inversion method (for all tank sizes) and, regardless of the various developers that I have used over the years, always use 4 gentle inversions over the first 30 seconds (followed by a sharp tap to the bottom of the tank before standing on the bench) and then one gentle inversion every 30 seconds (followed by a sharp tap to the bottom of the tank before standing on the bench). The reason for the difference you are seeing between tray development of sheet films and tank development of roll films is because the sheet film is receiving constant agitation and the roll films (with your current spin agitation) are receiving almost no agitation.
  • Exposure, reducing exposure and increasing development will automatically deliver high contrast (albeit with loss of shadow detail – whether this is an issue for you is something only you can decide). To see what kind of results this delivers, check out the work of Daido Moriyama and Anders Petersen.

Thanks everyone for the replys, I tested two rolls by rolling them along the counter as close to what a uni would do and got noticeably better negatives. Its still not want im hoping for but I went ahead ordered a used uniroller, i will stick with the patterson till i dump a half gallon of chems on my floor. I think part of it is my exceptions are too high. The few shots I have kept in my portfolio have been pushed. You can peek at http://ryanmills.net to get an idea how contrasty I like my film. Granted there all accented with curves and levels. Only the top left, violin and girl standing in front of an opening cabinet were medium format. And only the girl in front of the cabinet was not pushed. It just frustrates me to get exactly what I want with the exact same film (TMax 100/400) in 4x5 but just cant get the same tones in medium format. Anders Petersen does have a lot a like, just a little over the top. Thanks for all the info David, got some new things to try.

 

[Regular Rod]

Thanks everyone for the replys, I tested two rolls by rolling them along the counter as close to what a uni would do and got noticeably better negatives. Its still not want im hoping for but I went ahead ordered a used uniroller, i will stick with the patterson till i dump a half gallon of chems on my floor. I think part of it is my exceptions are too high. The few shots I have kept in my portfolio have been pushed. You can peek at http://ryanmills.net to get an idea how contrasty I like my film. Granted there all accented with curves and levels. Only the top left, violin and girl standing in front of an opening cabinet were medium format. And only the girl in front of the cabinet was not pushed. It just frustrates me to get exactly what I want with the exact same film (TMax 100/400) in 4x5 but just cant get the same tones in medium format. Anders Petersen does have a lot a like, just a little over the top. Thanks for all the info David, got some new things to try.

How about just stop. Take a deep breath. Now think things through a bit...

Paterson tanks have been around since before I was using them as a boy in the 1950's. They worked perfectly then and they still do. So probably the very best thing to do is to go back to the simplest method and develop your films by an inversion routine. That exhausted developer snag from twirling is just as likely to happen with the tank on its side and the tank was never designed for that method of agitation. Use smooth inversions and I bet you will see a marked improvement.

RR

 

[mwdake]

I've been using Paterson tanks for more than 40 years.
I use a simple invert and twist agitation. If I need to adjust contrast I adjust the development time.

I don't know how using these tanks could be made so complicated.

 

[ryanmills]

Rob deep breathes are for someone in labor. A year of testing I have thought things thru and tried plenty of things, many great way to make a terrible negative. Twist does not work for what Im looking for. Have you and mwdake tried inversion with the 10 reel tank... It feels pretty sketchy with the lid and weight, if the uniroller fails I will try inversions. But for now that seems like a lot better choice.

 

[Regular Rod]

Not with 10 reels in it but 5 loaded with 120... The only difference from the smaller tanks is that you need to hold it with two hands.

One deep breath is for someone who might do well to just hold on a moment and start thinking things through from scratch. Honestly, keeping things simple is the way with these excellent tanks.

Ah well I suppose it's true that "You can lead a horse to water..."

RR

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Rob deep breathes are for someone in labor. A year of testing I have thought things thru and tried plenty of things, many great way to make a terrible negative. Twist does not work for what Im looking for. Have you and mwdake tried inversion with the 10 reel tank... It feels pretty sketchy with the lid and weight, if the uniroller fails I will try inversions. But for now that seems like a lot better choice.

Contrast is something you control with developing time, plain and simple.

To fix your problem you most definitely do not need a motor base.

1. Use the inversion agitation suggested by others.
2. If you want more contrast in your film, you simply develop it longer. Increase time until you see what you want.

To be absolutely honest, I'm afraid the materials you are using are so good that if there is something wrong with the results, it's not because of them, but user error or simply not knowing how it works. Contrast is under your control. Sure, some films have more contrast than others, but you compensate for that during developing.

Less time = less contrast. More time = more contrast.

Less exposure = less shadow detail. More exposure = more shadow detail.
Less exposure = more developing time needed (but you lose shadow detail by doing this). More exposure = use the same developing time unless you start to see the highlights blocking up, in which case you back off.

Less agitation = less contrast. More agitation = more contrast.
Less agitation = more developing time required. More agitation = less developing time required.

To develop film is to prepare your medium for the final step of your process, to make sure that what you pointed your camera at gets recorded and developed so that it fits the rest of your process, whether that is film scanning and some form of digital or hybrid printing, or if you work in the darkroom.

Go back to your film developing, agitate properly, and keep trying until you see what you like. No machine is going to help you get there, only a little bit of hard work, a critical view of your results, educating yourself, and the fun of doing it is a nice bonus.

 

[mwdake]

Have you and mwdake tried inversion with the 10 reel tank...

No, I have not.
And I doubt I ever would as having something go wrong on 10 reels is 10 times more painful.

 

[Maris]

No, I have not.
And I doubt I ever would as having something go wrong on 10 reels is 10 times more painful.

I done a lot of developing with the Paterson 8 reel (35mm film) tank that also takes 5 120 format roll films. Inversion agitation is the only way to get all that liquid moving through the tank, top to bottom, for uniform development through the stack of reels on the long centre spindle. Precautions include maintaining a secure grip as the tank is heavy. Bumping the bottom of the tank to dislodge air bubbles is best done with the heel of the hand so it just hurts...but no harder. Banging the heavy tank on the darkroom sink will break it; I know. There seems to be a conspiracy to make plastic tanks out of brittle material.

Yes, mistakes can be magnified. A colleague once did the fixer first/developer second manoeuvre and ruined 8 films from an unrepeatable shoot. That's another story already told on APUG.