That's true. A hole is something. If everything is taken, you don't get a hole, you get nothing.
Rotary processing and surge marks/bromide drag?
-
A
- Thread starter logan2z
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikkormat FT3 BLACK
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Nagaoka 4X5 View Camera w/ Lens Boards
- Started by Beevo
-
For Sale FS: Fuji GF670 - Silver, recently serviced.
- Started by 0x001688936CA08
-
Found Mamiya RZ67 120 film back
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale Kodak 125PX Plus-X 35mm Film Lot (And More)
- Started by chuckroast
Forum statistics
That's true. A hole is something. If everything is taken, you don't get a hole, you get nothing.
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
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
That's right.
Do you use the 1540 tank, by any chance?
I'm using the 1520 with the 1530 extension.
Last edited:
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....
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:
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.
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
pentaxuser
MattKing
Moderator
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.
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:
Last edited:
Looks like this has come up before, and you gave a similar answer:
Minimum HC-110?
This came up again in another thread (and I am sure we have been through this before - I just couldn't find the thread). The question is: how much HC-110 is required per sheet of 4x5? Here is how I calculated it, basing my numbers on the Kodak data sheet...
www.photrio.com
MattKing
Moderator
Apparently, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" 
(Ralph Waldo Emerson)
(Ralph Waldo Emerson)
But trays allow one to brush pieces of film over each other and add scratches much more efficiently.
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
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.
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?
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
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 
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
Yes I agree with your prediction in the last sentence. I promise not to tell Charles Atlas
pentaxuser
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?
Not yet. I'm going to develop another roll today and see how that goes. I'll report back as soon as I have results.
Yes I agree with your prediction in the last sentence. I promise not to tell Charles Atlas
pentaxuser
The fact that both of us understand that reference means we're getting old
The fact that both of us understand that reference means we're getting old
The alternative to CA'a dynamic tension is the occasion visit to Photrio
pentaxuser
| 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:  |