Rotary processing and surge marks/bromide drag?

B8 - reworked.jpg

A
B8 - reworked.jpg

  • 0
  • 0
  • 46
Mid Day Matinée

A
Mid Day Matinée

  • 1
  • 0
  • 91
Cumberland Falls-7

A
Cumberland Falls-7

  • 1
  • 0
  • 96
Winter

A
Winter

  • 2
  • 0
  • 194
Pig Iron elevations.jpg

A
Pig Iron elevations.jpg

  • 1
  • 0
  • 262

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
181,944
Messages
2,517,863
Members
95,457
Latest member
sachan
Recent bookmarks
2

pentaxuser

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,848
Location
Daventry, No
Shooter
35mm
I am thoroughly confused. logan, which Jobo processor do you have and does it turn in one direction only, i.e. clockwise or anti clockwise? Or as you appear to change the rotation manually at intervals, does this mean that you have only a roller and tank which you operate by hand?

On the question of direction or rotation my CPE2 automatically changes its direction every few turns like Don's but is this the only Jobo processor that does this as there seems to be a post that indicates all the others turn in one direction only?

Thanks

pentaxuser
 

Don Heisz

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
2,891
Location
Ontario
Shooter
35mm RF
If the developer level is too low, maybe the developer can ripple across the film while it's out of the developer - perhaps be a little trapped while it's out of the developer. None of that would explain the correspondence with sprocket holes, though - unless the developer could bead between two layers of film between two sprocket holes (it would drain through the holes).
Speculation....
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
2,355
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Shooter
Multi Format
If the developer level is too low, maybe the developer can ripple across the film while it's out of the developer - perhaps be a little trapped while it's out of the developer. None of that would explain the correspondence with sprocket holes, though - unless the developer could bead between two layers of film between two sprocket holes (it would drain through the holes).
Speculation....

I probably should have mentioned that I'm using 500ml of working strength developer in the tank. I just double checked and I think that is actually a bit low for the combined 1530+1520 tank! Ugh, I think I misinterpreted the markings on the side of the 1530. I should be using at least 570ml. I guess this is a possibility and maybe I've been getting lucky with using a slightly lower amount. Thanks for making me double check this!
 
Last edited:

Craig

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,717
Location
Calgary
Shooter
Multi Format
Craig,
It looks to me like you may be working J-24 capacity numbers for tray processing . The J-24 numbers for development in tanks work out instead to twice the capacity, meaning half the minimum amount of concentrate - 6.25 ml per 8"x10" or equivalent.

I hadn't noticed that, but you're right. Wouldn't tray processing be closer to the situation of a Jobo, rather than a tank? I might be wrong, but I'm thinking the Kodak tank capacities are for a large tank, not a small volume? Under 500ml is closer to a tray situation than a deep tank.

Worth an experiment anyway, just to eliminate a variable.
 

pentaxuser

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,848
Location
Daventry, No
Shooter
35mm
Just curious, logan but why not use just a 1510 tank as you used when you started the thread or a 1520 if its 120 ? Less developer and the amount is marked on the side of the tanks so easier to ensure you have the right amount

pentaxuser
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
41,564
Location
Delta, BC, Canada
Shooter
Multi Format
I hadn't noticed that, but you're right. Wouldn't tray processing be closer to the situation of a Jobo, rather than a tank? I might be wrong, but I'm thinking the Kodak tank capacities are for a large tank, not a small volume? Under 500ml is closer to a tray situation than a deep tank.

Worth an experiment anyway, just to eliminate a variable.

The Kodak documents use "small tank" and "large tank" when there is a need to differentiate between the types of tanks.
And I've always thought that when it comes to issues of developer exhaustion, the environment in an inversion tank is much closer to the environment in a Jobo than a tray would be.
 

Don Heisz

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
2,891
Location
Ontario
Shooter
35mm RF
A Jobo is constant agitation. Tray development is constant agitation. They are identical.
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
2,355
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Shooter
Multi Format
Just curious, logan but why not use just a 1510 tank as you used when you started the thread or a 1520 if its 120 ? Less developer and the amount is marked on the side of the tanks so easier to ensure you have the right amount

pentaxuser

I was using only a 1520 tank when I was using inversion processing (if I said 1510 earlier that was a typo) . But the 1520 tank will not sit level on the Jobo roller, even when the Roller is adjusted for the smallest tank size. I added the 1530 extension so that the body of the tank would fit between the rollers and, therefore, sit level.

My incredibly stupid mistake was taking the rotary processing number from the 1530 and thinking that was the minimum amount of chemistry necessary for the combined 1520+1530. I had forgotten that the 1530 was not just a 1520 extension but could be used with any other Jobo tank. So the number on the 1530 needs to be added to the number on the tank that it's extending 😳 Since I was using 500ml of chemistry, I figured I was significantly over the minimum. But it turns out my gaff meant I was using slightly less than the minimum, which is 330ml (the extension) plus 240ml (for the 1520) for a total of 570ml. Luckily, it hasn't seemed to adversely affect the rolls I've developed using the Roller up to this point, but I'll definitely be upping the amount of chemistry going forward. How embarrassing...

Quick correction to what I wrote above: The body of the 1520 will sit level on the Jobo Roller but the weight of the tank is not evenly distributed and it felt unstable to me. So I opted for the larger tank which allowed the weight to be more evenly distributed with no risk of the tank tipping during processing. Maybe tipping wouldn't be an issue in practice, but I was attempting to eliminate the possibility.

This is clearly what you don't want:

qMqOgECh.png
 
Last edited:
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
2,355
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Shooter
Multi Format
The Kodak documents use "small tank" and "large tank" when there is a need to differentiate between the types of tanks.
And I've always thought that when it comes to issues of developer exhaustion, the environment in an inversion tank is much closer to the environment in a Jobo than a tray would be.

Looks like this has come up before, and you gave a similar answer:

 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
41,564
Location
Delta, BC, Canada
Shooter
Multi Format
Apparently, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" 😈
(Ralph Waldo Emerson)
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
43,837
Location
Southern California
Shooter
Multi Format
A Jobo is constant agitation. Tray development is constant agitation. They are identical.

But trays allow one to brush pieces of film over each other and add scratches much more efficiently.
 

pentaxuser

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,848
Location
Daventry, No
Shooter
35mm
I was using only a 1520 tank when I was using inversion processing (if I said 1510 earlier that was a typo) . But the 1520 tank will not sit level on the Jobo roller, even when the Roller is adjusted for the smallest tank size. I added the 1530 extension so that the body of the tank would fit between the rollers and, therefore, sit level.

My incredibly stupid mistake was taking the rotary processing number from the 1530 and thinking that was the minimum amount of chemistry necessary for the combined 1520+1530. I had forgotten that the 1530 was not just a 1520 extension but could be used with any other Jobo tank. So the number on the 1530 needs to be added to the number on the tank that it's extending 😳 Since I was using 500ml of chemistry, I figured I was significantly over the minimum. But it turns out my gaff meant I was using slightly less than the minimum, which is 330ml (the extension) plus 240ml (for the 1520) for a total of 570ml. Luckily, it hasn't seemed to adversely affect the rolls I've developed using the Roller up to this point, but I'll definitely be upping the amount of chemistry going forward. How embarrassing...

Ah, thanks I understand why now. Just a pity that the much more economical tanks such as the 1510 for 35mm and 1520 for 120 are not usable

pentaxuser
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
2,355
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Shooter
Multi Format
Ah, thanks I understand why now. Just a pity that the much more economical tanks such as the 1510 for 35mm and 1520 for 120 are not usable

pentaxuser

I added a clarification to my earlier post that I cross-posted with yours.

The 1520 will sit level on the Roller, but its weight will not be distributed evenly and I was concerned it would tip off the roller during processing. There is no such problem with the larger tanks. I haven't tried the 1510 but I assume it would have a similar problem.
 

grat

Member
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
2,005
Location
Gainesville, FL
Shooter
Multi Format
A tiny amount of light hitting the edge of the film could make more density in the already-exposed parts of the film out of line with the sprocket holes, which would interrupt the travel of the light - even if it was not enough light to fog the edge of the film itself. You would not notice that amount of increased density in anything other than a very even tone - like the cloudless sky.
There is no possible manufacturers defect in the emulsion that can correspond to the location of sprocket holes, since those are added long after the emulsion is dry. (Are holes added or subtracted?)

Totally crazy, off-the-wall theory... Has Kodak moved Tri-X 135 film to estar? I seem to recall they moved some of their film stocks over an estar base in the past couple years. Could this be light piping?
 

pentaxuser

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,848
Location
Daventry, No
Shooter
35mm
I added a clarification to my earlier post that I cross-posted with yours.

The 1520 will sit level on the Roller, but its weight will not be distributed evenly and I was concerned it would tip off the roller during processing. There is no such problem with the larger tanks. I haven't tried the 1510 but I assume it would have a similar problem.

I tried both the 1510 and 1520 with one set of rollers and with the palm of one hand lightly against the bottom of tank and the other spinning it by means of the cap I was able to keep the tank rolling relatively steadily. With both sets of rollers and one set close to lid are you sure that with the reduced amount of liquid needed for Jobo rotary processing you cannot keep the tank stable and level?

It look as if it should be possible if you are sure that rotary processing is the solution to your problem

Frankly I am at at a loss anyway to work out what rotary processing achieves in relation to your problem that normal inversion doesn't

pentaxuser
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
2,355
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Shooter
Multi Format
With both sets of rollers and one set close to lid are you sure that with the reduced amount of liquid needed for Jobo rotary processing you cannot keep the tank stable and level?
It works, but I thought the 1520 felt less than perfectly stable when rotating so I've been using the larger tank when doing rotary processing. Also, it seemed easier for me to maintain a constant rate of rotation when rotating from the body of the tank. But, if I hold both ends of the smaller tank and rotate from there then the tank is pretty stable. I might give the smaller tank another try.

Frankly I am at at a loss anyway to work out what rotary processing achieves in relation to your problem that normal inversion doesn't

It isn't a solution to the streaking problem I had earlier, but I felt that large areas of blank sky had more even development when using rotary processing so I've been sticking with it. It's also even more mindless than inversion processing since you don't have to keep track of the next inversion time - you just roll, roll, roll until the timer goes off 😋 It's also good exercise when using a dilute developer like Rodinal 1:50 and the development time is 10+ mins. Couple that with a stop bath time of 1 min, a fix time of 5 mins and the whole thing being preceded by a 3 min pre-soak, and that's nearly 20 minutes of continuous rotation. I should be ripped by the New Year 😀
 

pentaxuser

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,848
Location
Daventry, No
Shooter
35mm
It works, but I thought the 1520 felt less than perfectly stable when rotating so I've been using the larger tank when doing rotary processing. Also, it seemed easier for me to maintain a constant rate of rotation when rotating from the body of the tank. But, if I hold both ends of the smaller tank and rotate from there then the tank is pretty stable. I might give the smaller tank another try.



It isn't a solution to the streaking problem I had earlier, but I felt that large areas of blank sky had more even development when using rotary processing so I've been sticking with it. It's also even more mindless than inversion processing since you don't have to keep track of the next inversion time - you just roll, roll, roll until the timer goes off 😋 It's also good exercise when using a dilute developer like Rodinal 1:50 and the development time is 10+ mins. Couple that with a stop bath time of 1 min, a fix time of 5 mins and the whole thing being preceded by a 3 min pre-soak, and that's nearly 20 minutes of continuous rotation. I should be ripped by the New Year 😀

Yes I agree with your prediction in the last sentence. I promise not to tell Charles Atlas😁

pentaxuser
 

aparat

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
912
Location
Saint Paul,
Shooter
35mm
It isn't a solution to the streaking problem I had earlier, but I felt that large areas of blank sky had more even development when using rotary processing so I've been sticking with it.
This is precisely why I switched to rotary processing. It's not just skies, it is also frame edges, which used to drive me nuts. I have routinely gotten the most evenly developed negatives with rotary agitation.

By the way, any progress on troubleshooting the unevenness you showed early in the thread?
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom