Returning to (mostly Rotary) Darkroom

L Gebhardt

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
2,363
Location
NH
Format
Large Format

I think debugging your 4x5 is a great plan that will also improve your general skills. My 3 lens 4x5 kit is much lighter than the equivalent RZ kit (which doesn’t have built in tilt or shift), and the Fuji 680 is even heavier from what I’ve heard. Both are better studio cameras than field cameras in my eyes. The MF camera that comes closest to achieving a weight and bulk reduction that I have tried is the Mamiya 7. But of course without movements.

The attention aspect of LF generally means I don’t plan to be around a lot of people when I bring it out. But that goes for any camera that needs a tripod. Again the Mamiya 7 is very easy to shoot without a tripod in decent light due to the lack of mirror and leaf shutter.
 
OP
OP

JWMster

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2017
Messages
1,160
Location
Annapolis, MD
Format
Multi Format
Larry:

Yes, I dream of a Mamiya 6 RF or Mamiya 7 RF, but I think that the "buy by" date passed. Covid sure gave prices a jump, and maybe they'll fade again, but I'd been a bit concerned I'd get one just before the electronics crapped out. But yes, I really hear you on the RB/RZ... but am a bit suprised their bellows don't give you tilt shift. Fuji 680 ...yeah... only heavier. That's why I keep the TLR! And it does take some pretty amazing shots. TLR's have some constraints, but constraints aren't always limiting in a negative way.... pun intended.

Fuji 690 (Texas Leica) had some appeal, too, but by the time I really start to think about these guys... even the 3-D printed newbies like the Goodman, Mercury or one of Steve Chroma's designs (best contender actually), I get paused. So I did pick up a Horseman 6X9 roll back as a way to help use up my 120 rolls. And yes, my Nikon F4 and a couple of light work lenses are sticking even though I felt I'd been "done" with 35mm and Nikon when I went back to digital.... Nikon digital just didn't grab me like Fuji did. But the rest will get thinned and even possibly the GFX line up.

For me, smaller formats like 120 and 35 are for testing new films and tools to use in 4X5 - new developers and the like. Some like to suggest format changes also change detailed parts of the process and much as they're right if you're REALLY focused on the format, I like to shoot the same film and use the same chems for all... just to keep it simpler.

Realizing I don't really shoot a lot of long telephoto was probably the best ticket to lighter, more specific gear for "the carry". Might find a VERY used baby stroller for the 4X5 "carry" to throw my backpack in when I'm around town and going for architectural shots.

So yeah... working on 4X5, working on development, and working on lighting (Godox, reflector, etc setup last "camera-type" purchase so I could try my hand at still life and a bit of portraiture). Those are goals. And yes, they feed around the whole eco system the way B&W feeds color photography as well. So rather than new cameras or even lenses, a lot of the past few weeks I've found my rational self focused more on what to unload. Purchases have instead centered on new chemistry (Diafine, Citric Acid, etc.) and tools for mixing (Mixer-Stirrer, some glass beakers, and US Plastics bottles), a couple of new Paterson 3-tanks, and a B's processor and 4X5 reel... and a similar from E-tone 4X5 reel for a Jobo 1500 tank. And I've been studying up on the ways folks have "notched" their film holders....and drawn to the idea of carefully drilling some small holes along the long side in a defined pattern but nothing quite as complicated as detailed in Ralph Lambrecht's "Monochrome"... but hesitant to actually do this (mine are relatively new "virgin" Chamonix wood holders... but I don't have that many). Tried this on old plastic Elite-type holders and the idea was good but my execution.... kind of botched.
 
OP
OP

JWMster

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2017
Messages
1,160
Location
Annapolis, MD
Format
Multi Format
In terms of chems, I'm kind of laser focused at the moment on puzzling through the ID-11 5 liter issue and the fact that the largest glass beakers I can find for heating chems top out at 3 liters. So I'm tabling the ID-11 as not workable at the moment...'cause the 1 liter kits are comparatively pricey, and 5-liters need to use 3.75 liters hot to mix the core and then top up with cold. Yeah... I could heat up in waves to a higher than 104 temp that will allow me to do a serial run at this and then complete it, but that's really more trouble than it's worth at this point... or at least worth postponing for another day.

So I'm putting the ID-11 aside for now, and will go back to my D23 in STOCK one-use, two-chem, easy to mix, mega availability here at home already, and just put the other "try" stuff on the shelf for now. So we'll see where using this at STOCK "dilution" takes me, 'cause I'd always used this before at 1:1. This WILL SHORTEN times but should still have enough time to develop evenly. And since it's raw chems, I can set up any size I want rather than what some lab rat elsewhere determines as their bundle size. My Jobo tanks take 600ml and the Patterson can get by with 500ml min or 1000ml inversion. For rotary on the Bournet (aka B's Processor), I'm gonna try 750ml just splitting the difference. Math is still easy.

Thanks for the note on using STOP as a one-use as well. Yes, it's VERY cheap. And I'm assuming the HCA estimate of use and reuse must be close enough to your experiences to not raise an eyebrow.

Thank you to all!!! for your help. It's essential.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,872
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
need to use 3.75 liters hot to mix the core

The entire mix will dissolve in 2.5 litres without any problem. 270g of sodium sulfite will dissolve in 1 litre of water - and there would be 500g of sodium sulfite in the the package. (with 10g borax, 10g metol, and 25g hydroquinone). You should be able to keep it stored at double strength and dilute it for use (you'd dilute it 1:3 to get 1:1 ID11). I think @Donald Qualls did something like that...

Of course, if you have raw chemicals, you can just make a litre of D76.
 

Craig

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,358
Location
Calgary
Format
Multi Format
In terms of chems, I'm kind of laser focused at the moment on puzzling through the ID-11 5 liter issue and the fact that the largest glass beakers I can find for heating chems top out at 3 liters.
I use a plastic bucket I got for free from an ice cream shop.

Although if you want a bigger beaker, Amazon is your friend:
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,415
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Good idea. I've heard that it's pretty pricey stuff.

Yes, whispered on the internet

Stopbath with indicator is just so goddamned expensive!!
 
OP
OP

JWMster

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2017
Messages
1,160
Location
Annapolis, MD
Format
Multi Format
So I used the B's processor and B's reel.... and I'm very happy that all came out well. This is a fine machine and from now on will become my default for B&W because I LOVE the B's reel (Version 2) and its functionality for 6 sheets of 4X5. This compares EXTREMELY favorably to the Jobo 2509 reels in my opinion - even using the loader. In addition, I can use the Arista Premium reels for 35 and 120 with those nice fat tabs and clock-wind type loading... which is a fast and simple job having just done it for the 1st time in a VERY LONG time (since I first bought my Jobo and started using the "2502 adjustable reels"). I'm going to try an eTone reel for my Jobo 1530 tank, but we'll see.

Later, I'll be giving this machine a C41 run as well. If that works, my Jobo CPE2 plus (with lift) will be hitting the road.... unless I decide to get into enlarging and developing my own wet prints.... which is highly unlikely given the prices of 4X5 enlargers... even the used ones.

What I like about the B's processor: Pulsed rotary processing in the development stage with wobbly wheels gives enough irregularity to really slosh the juice around. I like the small footprint and the thorough, contemporary re-think of the process. This makes a lot of sense. Pricier machines than any Jobo are out there that reduce your hands-on time in processing, but for the most part having just restarted this stuff, I'd say unless you've got it all pre-mixed, your chem mixing time is greater than your processing time runs, so keep that in mind and allocate your time and $'s accordingly. I thought I'd miss the Jobo lift, but actually, I liked the Patterson tanks better than I remembered - and not just for the reels, but because they're so simple. And using the B's processor, I'm actually integrating some manual inversions to my routine, and that's a good thing. Getting back to film as a choice rather than a necessity and keeping digital in the mix (for "the necessity stuff") means that focus can (and maybe should be) on getting the best results you can. Why not? So a mix of machine and manual is fine and might even help reduce errors by using the best of each (some will pipe in that this is BS and they might be right, too). I think the Jobo lift got me into a sense that the process controlled me rather than the other way around. I'm not intimidated anymore! I've seen the results of those who don't rush... and it's fine. I'm more relaxed... and that's probably a good thing. The fast speeds are good for the other steps, but you gotta replace the wobbly wheels with the round. That's a bit wonky but not a big deal either. Again, relax.... the world won't end. Film is for producing art, and art - even bad art - deserves an effort to do your best and not rush.

My process has 11 steps with a 1-bath Developer, 12 if it's a 2-bath. So I picked up 12 1-liter bottles from US Plastics to make it so I load them ahead of time, bathe them at a common temp, and I'm ready to go. No lollygagging once I stop. Who needs to be a one-armed paper hanger? Use a CineStill temp machine in the bath and you've got a pretty decent way to do C41 and E6, too.... a step I'd pretty much adopted with the Jobo given it only gave me far fewer bottles in it's built-in bath.

So I still like what machines offer. They're my default. But the manual inversions at the 1st step in most of my defined processes (Prewash, Development, Stop, Fix, HypoClear) are things I'm adding and it's fine. Fancy machines? Yeah... good. And if I can get by with less.... remembering I started down this road for improved consistency... and if I can get it with a smaller, simpler, wonky machine that just happens to cost less and have easier loading reels? I'm all over that.
 
OP
OP

JWMster

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2017
Messages
1,160
Location
Annapolis, MD
Format
Multi Format
Asked for "Huh?" I'll provide the following links:

Here's the link to the site's full catalog, youtubes and PDF's: Bounet Photo
Link to B's unique 4X5 reel: 4X5 reel
Link to the Patterson 3 tank: Patterson tank @ B&H
Link to Arista Premium reel for 35mm / 120: 35mm and 120 reels
Link to Jobo Archives for articles - especially see Issue 7 on David Belew: Jobo manuals and articles

For some reason, even Bounet refers to his stuff as B's reel and B's processor.

Here are 2 youtubes that are helpful on the reels and processor by a third party:
Reels and Processor
That pretty much covers it. Suits me fine. Your mileage may vary.

As luck would have it, Benoit Bournet wrote me back this morning to say that he'd posted on Instagram how he's now working on a heated sleeve for Patterson tanks... and that will probably solve some of the foreseeable issues in using C41 with this set-up. This just might mean I'm closing in on the final runs with my Jobo...unloading the hardware, tanks, reels, etc... even a Uniroller as part of thinning my collection of "stuff" down to what I use? Yep... but not in the heat of the moment. Gotta let that idea sit for now.
 
Last edited:

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,328
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
I think @Donald Qualls did something like that...

Well, I did it with a 5 gal (!) package of Dektol mixed to 2.5 gallons. I think it might be just about time to toss what's left of the 2x stock solution (after about 17 years). It worked last time I used it (on Fomapan sheet film that had been in the 9x12 cm metal film holders for around ten years at the time), but development was a little uneven.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
1,817
Location
Plymouth. UK
Format
Multi Format

If you are wanting to use rotary processing, have you considered the new Jobo Alpha b&w developer designed specifically for their processors?

There is also a short film of this product on YouTube, but I'm sure how to make a link to it on my phone.
 
OP
OP

JWMster

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2017
Messages
1,160
Location
Annapolis, MD
Format
Multi Format
Keith: Thanks! I'm pretty much "done" with everything Jobo. My perspective is that the gearing on their tanks as the means of rotation is their best attribute, and a close second lies in utilizing a (heated) water bath to control temp a close 2nd... and putting all this in a package - even if it's not a complete package of ALL you'll pour - is a handy virtue. Over priced by a good deal, it's still prized... and I'm not letting go just yet... until I see whether my replacement process can deliver as well on C41 as it does with B&W.
But I'm generally managing a similar, "inspired by" approach with my new gear.

So with that, I'm pretty happy so far with the results I'm getting from the B's processor for $ 165 which offers a variety of pulsed, "wobbled" and speed options for rotation my CPE2+ cannot crank (CPE2's are 1-speed). Yes, it's a friction run rotation dependent on rubber bands to keep it on track, and I'm still working out some of the kinks, but it took longer with the Jobo to get good results when I was first at this game... which fairly was my fault not Jobo's.

In my mind the B's processor fairly mimicks and integrates with manual inversion doggone nicely. Could I have done this with the Jobo, too? Probably, buut I didn't. In part, that's because the point of the Jobo is keeping the tank on the machine (if you have a lift - which mine does). But the B's processor - like the Uniroller base - does rotation from outside the tank by contact, and in effect is something different. Yes, it has its defects, and you can't just walk away... which is hard to do with the Jobo as well, but at least the Jobo keeps rolling more reliably.... I'm still watching my tanks here 'cause they're NOT geared and instead kept in place with rubber bands. But equally, I think friction-rotation also offers an "opportunity" for a fruitful mix of approaches, and for this, I utilize some manual inversions initially with each step after loading the major new chems (Pre-Wash, Developer, Stop, Fix and WashAid) and then putting the tank on the processor for rotation for the rest of the time just seems to assure a more complete and even process. I do rinse baths along the way and usually add a couple of quick manual inversions with the 1st rinse as well. I might back those inversions off as I get more confidence in the processor, but for now it's working fine, and I think most of us tend to be fairly conservative in keeping things that haven't gone wrong (as opposed to testing a simpler step to be certain that the step really has the effect we think it has).

Also I absolutely believe the B's 4X5 reel ($60) gives a Mike Tyson smack down to the Jobo 2509 and loader... with the only problem the fact that it wasn't designed to run in a Jobo tank.... but instead meant for Patterson 3's... which work absolutely fine and leak no more than a Jobo tank does... which is to say it can leak zero if you're careful, or a few drops if you're not. So oddly to come full circle, Jobo has great geared tanks, but inferior reels in my experience from the perspective of being persnicketty in their loading attributes, and it's the reels that have me reeling (sic, pun intended), and keeping it real. And once you make that "how do I manage the negatives while processing?" question answered, then your options for assisting hardware follows. I think the ultimate process remains dip 'n dunk with air bubbled agitation... but that tends to be a commercial scale operation (not exclusively though) and a bit beyond what I earmark for my pocketbook to bear. I'm not Mr. Rock BottomDollar by any means.... but if "better for my needs" runs less costly, that's such an unlikely experience that it's worth a little celebration. Everywhere else in photography and film, "better" tends to cost more. And realistically, if I'm going to keep with film (and yes, that IS an IF) I've got to manage both the time AND some of the cost... even it means unloading what I'm not using... at a loss.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…