Processing ULF Film

[reggie]

Can any of you tell me how you develop ULF film. I have in mind 12x20 film. I am curious if you process it one sheet at a time in trays, tubes, JOBO tanks, etc. Do any of you have racks that can hold 3-5 sheets that are processed in trays? How about something like a 16x20 print washer with a drain spout where the film stands vertically?

I am looking at using stand development of EFKE PL 100 right now. I could use some suggestions on develper, working solution concentration and development times.

How does stand development do expansion - will it oxidize before N+2 times?

Thanks.

-R

 

[Mike A]

Check Sandy Kings posts as well as Steve Sherman, oh yeah Scooterman also. All these guys are very knowledgable with the developement combination you describe here.

I develope by inspection 11x14 PL100 in a tray with a sponge brush one at a time. Good luck.
Mike A

 

[Robert Hall]

I have used trays and jobo tubes. I have Jobo tubes with inserts which are very rare. I have used the larger (sized for 20x24 prints) with and without inserts.

The greatest success comes from processing them one at a time in the jobo tubes with inserts. I usually get scratches developing more than one at a time in the tray.

I use PMK by the way.

 

[Daniel Grenier]

I do my 8x10s and 7x17s in a tray one at a time using a brush. Time consuming, but worth it. No scratches, no mottling.

 

[Steve_7x]

I use a Jobo with inserts for 7x17 (2 will fit in one drum) and and 12x20 (1 at a time).

I use Rollo Pyro as my cjoice but I have not used Efke... I am still working off my PhotoWarehouse stock (FP4+).

Steve

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I shuffle 11x14" in 16x20" trays, just like I do with 8x10" and sometimes smaller formats, though with Efke, 1 sheet at a time might be better.

With film that has a more robust protective layer (i.e., Kodak and Ilford), I find I get more consistent results if I do more than one sheet at a time (2-8 usually).

 

[noseoil]

Reggie, something I've been kicking around for a while is this issue of larger films and large volumes of developer. Thanks to Sandy King, pyrocat is very cheap to use so larger volumes are still costing a few cents a sheet, but it isn't possible to use less than a full cylinder for stand or minimal agitation with tubes. Trays are not a problem in this manner, but lights must stay off for the full duration. My 8x10 tubes require a batch of 1200 ml (1.2L), but the necessary volume is much less, about 400ml is likely enough.

The idea is to use black ABS sewer line (4" I.D. = 12.5" circumference, so it will hold a 12" width film), then put a smaller liner or sleeve in place in the center to save on solution. It seems to me that with a little care, a 2" or 3" ABS pipe could be fused in place in the center of a 4" flat-bottom end cap. This smaller pipe would have a plug in the other end, so it is a sealed cylinder. Once a 4" pipe is fused into the end cap, a development tube with the center blocked (just the liner concept on a large scale) would result in a good shape for minimal agitation, use less volume of solution and work with the lights on. Just use a standard clean-out fitting which is threaded for the end plug, best of both worlds. This is plumbing store stuff with off the shelf fittings. No special tools are needed, except for the exact cuts to get true ends for good bonds. Might need to make a glue-jig to hold the smaller tube in place, since there isn't a commercially made end cap which will take the small pipe and fasten it to the large end cap. A rib glued to the inside of the large pipe would make insertion more sure and keep film for scratching.

For a 22" x 4" ABS tube with a 2" x 20" liner, the volume would be about 3L, with the 3" x 20" liner about 2L, plenty. tim

 

[Ole]

I was lucky, I guess. My ULF is 30x40cm, which by pure coincidence is the largest size that fits in my JOBO print drum.

 

[reggie]

Reggie, something I've been kicking around for a while is this issue of larger films and large volumes of developer. Thanks to Sandy King, pyrocat is very cheap to use so larger volumes are still costing a few cents a sheet, but it isn't possible to use less than a full cylinder for stand or minimal agitation with tubes. Trays are not a problem in this manner, but lights must stay off for the full duration. My 8x10 tubes require a batch of 1200 ml (1.2L), but the necessary volume is much less, about 400ml is likely enough.

The idea is to use black ABS sewer line (4" I.D. = 12.5" circumference, so it will hold a 12" width film), then put a smaller liner or sleeve in place in the center to save on solution. It seems to me that with a little care, a 2" or 3" ABS pipe could be fused in place in the center of a 4" flat-bottom end cap. This smaller pipe would have a plug in the other end, so it is a sealed cylinder. Once a 4" pipe is fused into the end cap, a development tube with the center blocked (just the liner concept on a large scale) would result in a good shape for minimal agitation, use less volume of solution and work with the lights on. Just use a standard clean-out fitting which is threaded for the end plug, best of both worlds. This is plumbing store stuff with off the shelf fittings. No special tools are needed, except for the exact cuts to get true ends for good bonds. Might need to make a glue-jig to hold the smaller tube in place, since there isn't a commercially made end cap which will take the small pipe and fasten it to the large end cap. A rib glued to the inside of the large pipe would make insertion more sure and keep film for scratching.

For a 22" x 4" ABS tube with a 2" x 20" liner, the volume would be about 3L, with the 3" x 20" liner about 2L, plenty. tim

This sounds like a very nice idea. I really like the idea of the inner hollow sealed tube to save on chemistry - one of the downsides of stand development with JOBO tanks for ULF. Do you think it could be modified so that the overall I.D. is greater than 4" so that more than one 12x20 sheet could be placed inside? Maybe a 6" diameter with concentric inner tubes allowing 3 sheets at a time, or is this too much to ask for. Maybe making 3 each of the 4" tubes would be easier.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by:

"A rib glued to the inside of the large pipe would make insertion more sure and keep film for scratching."

Anyway, this is good thinking on your part and it was just the kind of idea that I was hoping for. Have you actually built one yet? I am not skilled with tools, but these materials seem simple enough to use that I could build them at home. I am not sure how I would get the square end cuts to make sure the end bonds are tight. How do you do that? I guess Home Depot would have everything that I'd need?

I was also kicking around the idea of a plastic\plexiglass version of the old rubber tank\stainless sheet film holder. I wonder if anyone has done that? It could handle a lot of film at once 5 - 10 sheets easily, I'd think, with not too much chemistry needed.

Thanks again and if you go ahead and build one, please let me know.

Thanks.

-R

 

[noseoil]

Reggie, to be honest I haven't built one, as I'm still working with a smaller format (8x10). Not sure about multiple sheets as there could be more trouble to make this type of tube than just working with three individual ones.

The rib along the inside is an idea to keep the film in place. The open ends of the film (which are curled toward each other to form a tube) would have an edge guide to prevent scratching from overlapping inside the tube during insertion of extraction.

As for tools needed, a sharp carbide blade in a "chop saw" (12" motorized miter saw) would be all you need to make square cuts. De-burr the edges so there isn't a possibility of scratches. Good luck, tim