Relatively "cheaper" ways to process 8x10 negatives?

[tallenpatterson]

I've been doing some research, but wanted to get the group input regarding a "cheaper" way to develop 8x10 b&w negatives. I've been considering messing around with a 8x10 pinhole camera on the side and was curious about ways to develop this size and the most economical method...if there is such.

I currently shoot and process 4x5 several times a week.

Thanks for any input

 

[MattKing]

If you use developer in a replenishment regime, it is "cheap as chips" and, IMHO, the results are superior too.

Not just for 8x10 film.

X-Tol and T-Max RS (not plain T-Max) developer are ideal, because you don't need a separate replenisher.

ID-11 can be used as well - the instructions on the Ilford website explain how to do this (it turns on the fact that ID-11 comes to you in two separate packages.

 

[ic-racer]

Processing is the least expensive step.

 

[Jim Noel]

Cheapest method - Use trays.

 

[tallenpatterson]

How about for daylight development? Any recommendations on tanks, etc?

 

[Alan9940]

Chemistry size, the cheapest way to go is either BTZS tubes or Jobo Expert Drums on a roller base. Least expensive way to start is trays.

Have fun!

 

[revdoc]

I made my own developing tubes using 80mm grey PVC pipe and press-on end caps. Cost me about twenty Australian dollars all up. They have proved to be light-tight, at least under rooms lights. The main thing is to cut the ends square so the end caps form a watertight seal, so I used a mitre box when I cut them, and sanded the cut edges smooth.

I've used them with both stand development and continuous agitation (by rolling them back and forth). Developer is Rodinal, because it's cheap, and for 8x10, I'm not very concerned about grain!

To fix, I take off the end cap, pull out the film with my fingers, and slide it into a tray of fixer. This can be done in room light.

 

[DWThomas]

Do I get this right? Somebody interested in fooling around with pinhole camera and expensive pan 8x10 film? If I were to have an interest in something as worthless as a pinhole camera, I'd use x-ray film and develop it some high dilution Rodinal, maybe.I don't blame you for wanting to keep it cheap. I would too, and that's what I'd do.

Harrumph!!!

But yeah, I've been using Fuji HR-T Xray film in a pinhole camera. Last couple times I used HC110 1+63, my favorite soup. The Xray film I have has emulsion on both sides which makes it a bit tedious to handle (the emulsion is quite soft when wet) but I've been developing in open smooth bottom Cesco 8x10 trays pretty successfully. It needs to be in the dark, of course, but I've also heard of developing in a gallon or so ZipLoc bag or putting a piece of glass or PlexiGlas in a ribbed tray to create a smooth surface. I suppose if I shot a lot of 8x10 I'd be looking for a deep tank and film hangers, but for a half dozen once or twice a year, the trays are sufficient.

 

[Rick A]

I use Cibachrome drums on a motor base. Only takes a couple of ounces of chemistry, and the gear is far cheaper than Jobo stuff. I have tubes that handle everything from 35 mm, 120, and 4x5 through 16x20. Load in the dark, process in daylight.

 

[Leigh B]

I use Cibachrome drums on a motor base. Only takes a couple of ounces of chemistry...

Be very careful about using "very little" chemistry.

ALL developers have a minimum active volume required for one "roll" of film.
Regardless of the method of development used, you must use at least that amount of developer.

A "roll" is one 8x10 sheet of film or any other format that can be proofed on one 8x10 sheet of paper.
That would be one 35mmx36 roll or one 120 roll or four 4x5 sheets.

- Leigh

 

[johnielvis]

CHEAPEST way--investment-wise and chemistry-wise is get the smallest ziplock bag that the film will fit it...pour in chemistry---ziplock it shut....get to "one shot" development--just use enough to process one sheet to completion and dump it totally exhausted down the drain--very cheap environmentally too!

CONVENIENT??? there are other more convenient methods...this is cheapest for sure.

 

[Jim Jones]

Be very careful about using "very little" chemistry.

ALL developers have a minimum active volume required for one "roll" of film.
Regardless of the method of development used, you must use at least that amount of developer.

A "roll" is one 8x10 sheet of film or any other format that can be proofed on one 8x10 sheet of paper.
That would be one 35mmx36 roll or one 120 roll or four 4x5 sheets.

- Leigh

A rocker tray with a curved bottom requires no more than that minimum amount of developer. After development the developer can be dumped and the rest of the processing done in either the rocker or flat bottom trays.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

As far as economy is concerned you have swallowed the camel and now strain on the gnat. Matthew 23:24.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I bought some thin (narrow) stainless steel tanks. But It appears I won't ever be using them. No, I'm not selling them yet. When I eventually do they'll be on eBay.

 

[MattKing]

You can use a paper safe as a developing tank/tray. The lights will need to be off when emptying or filling it, but not during the steps of the process themselves.

 

[Rick A]

Be very careful about using "very little" chemistry.

ALL developers have a minimum active volume required for one "roll" of film.
Regardless of the method of development used, you must use at least that amount of developer.

A "roll" is one 8x10 sheet of film or any other format that can be proofed on one 8x10 sheet of paper.
That would be one 35mmx36 roll or one 120 roll or four 4x5 sheets.

- Leigh

I use 200ml developer for one 8x10,or 11x14, or 2-5x7's, or 4-4x5's. I used to use the taco method, it used 850ml, I've also used other tanks for 4x5 and up, used anywhere from one liter and up. I get excellent results with my method.

 

[unityofsaints]

Processing is the least expensive step.

As far as economy is concerned you have swallowed the camel and now strain on the gnat. Matthew 23:24.

Indeed. So much more money can be saved switching from Kodak/Fuji to Ilford or Ilford to Foma/Arista or Foma/Arista to X-Ray film that any potential savings in your development approach are minuscule in comparison.

 

[DWThomas]

Indeed. So much more money can be saved switching from Kodak/Fuji to Ilford or Ilford to Foma/Arista or Foma/Arista to X-Ray film that any potential savings in your development approach are minuscule in comparison.

Yes! When I was considering an 8x10 pinhole camera for a WPPD outing a few years back, I found two sobering obstacles. The first was filmholders which tended to run at least $40 a piece on ePrey, although they are at least a relatively long term investment. The second was a strange conundrum -- the big name films were almost twice as much per sheet as some house brands (Arista) -- but, one could buy a 50-sheet package of the big name stuff, whereas the Arista packages were 100 sheets. Net result, the "cost of entry" was upwards of $100 either way. I ended up with 100 sheets of X-ray film for about $42 including shipping. That seemed more reasonable to get my feet wet and see if/how much I wanted to pursue the 8x10 route. So far I'm still working with the X-ray stuff (Fuji HR-T), but one of these years I may splurge and see what I can do with the "real" stuff.

I freely admit the standard photographic films would likely be "better" in some regards, or at least easier to process in keeping contrast within bounds and avoiding soft 2-sided emulsion risks, but a careful approach with X-ray can yield quite decent results. Just last week I did a presentation on various formats and cameras to a group. Several people reacted to an 8x10 contact print from X-ray film with amazement -- "That was pinhole?!!!"