Rotary processing for roll film - streaking or uneven development more likely?

[pentaxuser]

If rotary processing can results in such problems as streaking or uneven development then wouldn't the users of Jobo processors report more problems than seems to be the case. Usually those now disillusioned victims would have taken the opportunity to make their bad experiences known but I can't recall seeing many if any report such experiences

Could it be that the speed and frequency of rotational change used on a rotary eliminates such problems? If it doesn't then we are being asked to spend a lot of money on what may be a bit of a hit or miss procedure, aren't we?

pentaxuser

 

[Steven Lee]

@pentaxuser I see JOBO users do complain about their results online every once in a while. Then they apply adjustments to one of those variables I mentioned above, discover their personal sweet spot and proceed to live happily ever after.

 

[mshchem]

This can't be bromide drag, you don't use stand development techniques, do you?

The worst case scenario. I tried processing 2 sheets of TX 8X10 in a Jobo 11x14" print drum, wait for it, single direction Duolab. It had some serious bromide "streaks" . This was years ago. I repeated the experiment, same drum, more developer, reversing roller perfect

My point is if you want to use highly dilute developers I would recommend at a minimum using a size larger Jobo tank, ie 1520 for a single 35mm film, plenty of solution.

 

[mshchem]

If rotary processing can results in such problems as streaking or uneven development then wouldn't the users of Jobo processors report more problems than seems to be the case. Usually those now disillusioned victims would have taken the opportunity to make their bad experiences known but I can't recall seeing many if any report such experiences

Could it be that the speed and frequency of rotational change used on a rotary eliminates such problems? If it doesn't then we are being asked to spend a lot of money on what may be a bit of a hit or miss procedure, aren't we?

pentaxuser

See my response.

People who try to use XTOL 1+2 in a Jobo need to be careful.

Not looking for an argument

 

[mshchem]

Optional Duolab cog and 300 ml bottle

 

[mshchem]

The best thing about the Silverbase is it will fit in a (ladies) shoebox

 

[JWMster]

Done with the pricey stuff - Jobo, TAS, etc. But with the lessons learned there and wouldn't have learned without it, I've adopted something similar to Matt's approach with a mix of manual agitation initially and rotary for the rest of the time allotted for each bath. Sold out the fancy gear, and now use:

1) B's processor for rotation - using wobbly wheels on mid speed for developing step. Round wheels on "high" for all others.
2) Paterson tanks,
3) Arista "Professional" reels for 35mm and/or 120 (with the tabs)
4) B's 4X5 reels.
6) Cinestill (sous vide) heating unit
7) McMaster work bin filled with water to hold a series of 1 liter bottles from US Plastics - one bottle for each chem or water bath. No refills.

Goal was a smaller footprint... which I may have missed, but did achieve a much less $ intensive investment. Recycled to someone willing and in need.

At the end of the day, I'm finding film development is much less precise and more like cooking where stuff is fuzzy. Cooking has a LOT of apparent precision up to a point and then it all goes squishy (pinch / smidgen / brown until done / etc.). Easy to go around the bend and get OCD about this stuff. People do and their results are amazing I'm sure. But seems to me consistency is more important than just about anything else. EVERYTHING works for someone. The hard part is figuring out what works for each of us... and consistency is how we figure out what changes make a difference so that we can tweak stuff and understand the impact. Experience then pushes the rest so that I guess we get confident enough to feel like we know what we're doing - until we decide to change something.

 

[mshchem]

Done with the pricey stuff - Jobo, TAS, etc. But with the lessons learned there and wouldn't have learned without it, I've adopted something similar to Matt's approach with a mix of manual agitation initially and rotary for the rest of the time allotted for each bath. Sold out the fancy gear, and now use:

1) B's processor for rotation - using wobbly wheels on mid speed for developing step. Round wheels on "high" for all others.
2) Paterson tanks,
3) Arista "Professional" reels for 35mm and/or 120 (with the tabs)
4) B's 4X5 reels.
6) Cinestill (sous vide) heating unit
7) McMaster work bin filled with water to hold a series of 1 liter bottles from US Plastics - one bottle for each chem or water bath. No refills.

Goal was a smaller footprint... which I may have missed, but did achieve a much less $ intensive investment. Recycled to someone willing and in need.

At the end of the day, I'm finding film development is much less precise and more like cooking where stuff is fuzzy. Cooking has a LOT of apparent precision up to a point and then it all goes squishy (pinch / smidgen / brown until done / etc.). Easy to go around the bend and get OCD about this stuff. People do and their results are amazing I'm sure. But seems to me consistency is more important than just about anything else. EVERYTHING works for someone. The hard part is figuring out what works for each of us... and consistency is how we figure out what changes make a difference so that we can tweak stuff and understand the impact. Experience then pushes the rest so that I guess we get confident enough to feel like we know what we're doing - until we decide to change something.

Well done!
Have you seen the reels similar to the Arista/AP design but also incorporating the Jobo "red tab" for separating two 120 films?

All I had for years was a couple Paterson tanks, a couple nice thermometers and my old trusty 1973 Beseler enlarger. I got by just fine.
I started accumulating stuff when it was had for the taking, I could start a museum

 

[Anon Ymous]

The worst case scenario. I tried processing 2 sheets of TX 8X10 in a Jobo 11x14" print drum, wait for it, single direction Duolab. It had some serious bromide "streaks" . This was years ago. I repeated the experiment, same drum, more developer, reversing roller perfect

My point is if you want to use highly dilute developers I would recommend at a minimum using a size larger Jobo tank, ie 1520 for a single 35mm film, plenty of solution.

These are surge marks, or whatever they may be called, but not bromide drag. For the record, I have noticed surge marks few times around the sprocket holes of 135 film, but these are only with my Jobo 1510 tank. And no, I don't use it as a shaker. It has rarely happened, but I'm puzzled about what actually caused it. Normal film, Xtol stock, agitation not too vigorous, nor gentle.

 

[JWMster]

Well done!
Have you seen the reels similar to the Arista/AP design but also incorporating the Jobo "red tab" for separating two 120 films?

All I had for years was a couple Paterson tanks, a couple nice thermometers and my old trusty 1973 Beseler enlarger. I got by just fine.
I started accumulating stuff when it was had for the taking, I could start a museum

Thanks! Don't think I've seen those reels, but if you have a link.... I'll follow it. B&H? Freestyle?

FWIW, the B's 4X5 is the best 4X5 reel I've used: Easy to load and unload. No loader or tricks needed. Link: Bounetphoto
The B's Processor on the same link adds a lot of features to the Bessler rollers of yore - like three speeds with one pulsed. Clever, effective and at $ 165 VERY reasonable. Some tried earlier releases and had some issues. Those appear to have been fixed in my experience. Again, YMMV.

Jobo tank and reel prices are premium priced in my crusty mind. Nothing wrong with that per se but considering Paterson prices, Arista and then bottles from US Plastics bottles ...you pay a premium for dedicated equipment and an all-in-one package. Yet I give Jobo a lot of credit for it's initial tech as a gift to struggling film developers like me... and I am incredibly thankful they provided an option to expensive labs that in many cases just vanished. Further, I admire that they actually have answered our youngster, 3D designs from the new innovators with their own Silverbase hardware. Silverbase looks pretty decent, well made, etc. and I like that it's honest about what it does and doesn't do. Seems a fair price, too.... (as Al Franken would add) "for a change." That's good for all of us.

But we need innovators and distributors. Analog... I hope it stays with us! Keeps giving us sheet and roll film... 'cause yeah, it's a struggle and the camera and lenses are only part of the requisite infrastructure (if you print, scan, enlarge, etc.)

 

[pentaxuser]

@pentaxuser I see JOBO users do complain about their results online every once in a while. Then they apply adjustments to one of those variables I mentioned above, discover their personal sweet spot and proceed to live happily ever after.

Which variables are these? I can only see one variable on my CPE that can be varied and that's the speed where there are 2 speeds. On the next version which was the CPE2 Plus there appears to be only one speed which was said to be OK for both prints and film. The one speed CPE2 Plus has a speed of about 75rpm and even the CPE at its lowest speed has the reverse rotation and a speed which seems to be enough to avoid uneven/streaky development and yet is slow enough to avoid surge marks and give random enough movement to the developer to ensure no problem

I suppose what it amounts to is that my head has difficulty envisaging why given the above rotary processing details it should exhibit the kind of problem you mention Certainly in C41 processing I have never envisaged any kind of issue with Jobo rotary processing but if you have such problems then OK

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

I can only see one variable on my CPE that can be varied and that's the speed where there are 2 speeds.

The presence of a pre-wash is the other important factor.
And arguably choice of developer is yet another, although for color there are of course not so many options as for B&W.

Certainly in C41 processing I have never envisaged any kind of issue with Jobo rotary processing

See my earlier post in this thread; in 120 and sheet film formats I've had significant problems with rotary processing. I ended up finding a solution to them and I very much second @Steven Lee's remark that the solution for one photographer may be the exact opposite of what works for another, and that it's therefore important to experiment instead of assume that what works in one darkroom will automatically work in another.

Rotary processing in Jobo tanks can work flawlessly, but it's not guaranteed to do so.

 

[FotoD]

Which variables are these? I can only see one variable on my CPE that can be varied and that's the speed where there are 2 speeds.

Pre-wetting, time, temperature, rotation, choice of developer, volume of developer, concentration of developer, quality of the water, how developer is poured into the tank, how wetting agent is used, how tanks and reels are cleaned, etc...

You can ruin quite a few films if you change only one variable at a time.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Pre-wetting, time, temperature, rotation, choice of developer, volume of developer, concentration of developer, quality of the water, how developer is poured into the tank, how wetting agent is used, how tanks and reels are cleaned, etc...

You can ruin quite a few films if you change only one variable at a time.

Prewetting solves all sorts of problems with tanks alone and Jobo processing, followed by the appropriate use of surfactants such as PhotoFlo and similar products.

 

[Steven Lee]

Which variables are these? I can only see one variable on my CPE that can be varied and that's the speed where there are 2 speeds.

Sure, having read a bunch of Jobo threads over the years, I've collected the following variables that people historically adjusted to solve their uneven development problems:

• Speed, as you mentioned
• Pre-wetting film or not
• Volume of chemistry. Jobo recommendations are just bare minimums
• Double-loading reels or not
• 1500 vs 2500 reels

In my case, the speed never made much of a difference, but pre-wetting, double-loading, and switching to larger diameter reels had an effect.

I can probably add one more variable to the mix, which is having a lift vs not. I don't have one and occasionally I see a faint but remarkably straight density line on my color negatives, roughly around the watermark. I believe it is caused by me not placing the tank back onto the platform quickly enough after pouring in the developer or the bleach.

 

[mshchem]

Sure, having read a bunch of Jobo threads over the years, I've collected the following variables that people historically adjusted to solve their uneven development problems:

• Speed, as you mentioned
• Pre-wetting film or not
• Volume of chemistry. Jobo recommendations are just bare minimums
• Double-loading reels or not
• 1500 vs 2500 reels

In my case, the speed never made much of a difference, but pre-wetting, double-loading, and switching to larger diameter reels had an effect.

I can probably add one more variable to the mix, which is having a lift vs not. I don't have one and occasionally I see a faint but remarkably straight density line on my color negatives, roughly around the watermark. I believe it is caused by me not placing the tank back onto the platform quickly enough after pouring in the developer or the bleach.

I have always wanted to somehow put instruments on one of my Jobos to see how much temperature of the solutions, tanks etc change with the lift. If you have a 20°C lift and 38° solutions.......
I'm going to build a glovebox, nitrogen atmosphere, everything at 38 C, let the film tank equilibrate for 8 hours before starting

 

[lenspeeper]

Folks,

Over the past almost 40 years of my photography, I don't think I've ever done rotary processing of roll film. I've done the normal inversion tank approach for everything that I can recall and when I did have a Jobo, it was used for sheet film (4x5, and larger using Expert drums). I never used it for roll film processing. Above 8x10 film size, I mostly processed in trays.

I'm back to shooting film, but only 120, and I've been doing it through the traditional Jobo 1500 series tanks and using inversion processing. That works well, but I'd prefer to automate it some so I can put my attention on getting a new batch of chems ready or for other tasks in the darkroom because I realy have to be more efficient with my time.

As I see it, I have 3 main choices, with some having options within:

1. Jobo CPE or Filmomat Light
2. Jobo Silverbase or similar from China
3. Heiland TAS

Two of the main options are rotary. Some options are cheaper than the third option so that is a factor, but frankly, if the Heiland is the best option, then I'll go that route.

The CPE or Filmomat Light allow a water tempering bath which could be very handy for color processing, but I doubt it is really all that necessary for B&W processing. I could just use them without the water, though, but they are a bit more bulky because of that capability.

Next on the list is the Silverbase and all of the Chinese rotary roller units out there. The sad thing is that the Jobo Silverbase is about the sme price as the Filmomat Light, so there's something attractive about just buying that one instead of what appears to be grossly inflated prices for the modern Jobo product. The Chinese products are a lot less expensive, but they are probably nowhere near as robust, so I'm not as incliined to go that route.

I care about the quality of the processing (in this respect, I mean eveneess, not absolute density conrol aspects, ala the Zone System, because I'm scanning after this step, so I don't need to be too precise with the DR of the negatives), and one thing I have seen on occasion with Jobo rotary processing is bromide drag. That never happened with the Expert drums, but I have seen it when there is laminar flow in a drum from the regular rotation. In roll film, I would be concerned more about surge marks from the spools and if the rotary motion back and fourth causes this to be in the same location al the time, it will cause density artifacts.

What I'm interested in is whether I really am better off going the Heiland TAS route for this processing and foregoing the rotary approach because I will get consistentily superior results from keeping an inversion approach for my processing. I see comments/question on here from people who have had problems with roll film in the Jobo but I feel that there isn't enough data to have a clear understanind whether this is an edge case or if it may be more common, especially when looking carefully at the negative with respect to tingls like development uneveness.

I'm looking for some advice/recommendations/experiences for people who have done rotary processing with 120 fim and how that experience compares to inversion, etc.

Many thanks,

---Michael

Look into B's rotary film processor. This guy has been developing versions of the processor for years and I just bought his latest version. I haven't used it yet, but I ran some rotary tests and I see no reason why ot shouldn't do the job. It starts, stops, rotates
bi-directionally, has three speeds and is well made. It ran me $165 and took me 1/2 hour to set up once I understood how it worked. See: https://www.bounetphoto.com/bounet-shop/processor-new
You should find some write-ups on You Tube on some of his earlier versions.

Good luck,
lenspeeper

 

[pentaxuser]

OK I understand the variables mentioned and can see why those can effect changes and it may be that in this part of the thread we have moved away from the initial question posed by the OP but this was:

Rotary processing for roll film - streaking or uneven development more likely?​

​

It was simply the rotary processing in a Jobo processor and its effect or lack of effect on causing streaking or uneven development to which I was referring. I still fail to see why the same rotary processing on my machine and someone else's identical machine should be any different. Within that qualification I have just made I still fail to see why the pattern of rotary processing on a Jobo can be other than random enough and frequent enough to avoid the effects that the OP mentioned

If I have now made it clear which aspect I was referring then great. If I haven't then I can do no more so I'll leave it at that

pentaxuser

 

[Steven Lee]

@pentaxuser The literal answer to the thread title is YES. Compared to inversion agitation, rotary processing is more likely to introduce uneven development. The reason is physics: rotary uses far less chemistry and film is never fully submerged. This narrows the margin for sloppy handling technique and makes it more susceptible to external factors, e.g. the variables I listed. This has been my experience, but I never inverted C41 manually. I am comparing inversion processor like TAS to a rotary processor.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Compared to inversion agitation, rotary processing is more likely to introduce uneven development. The reason is physics: rotary uses far less chemistry and film is never fully submerged.

I try and use maximum solution volumes where appropriate. Suspect some of the issues of Jobo development are down to insufficient solution volumes to process the film adequately.

 

[brbo]

I try and use maximum solution volumes where appropriate. Suspect some of the issues of Jobo development are down to insufficient solution volumes to process the film adequately.

I really doubt that.

Before I switched to single-shot (where I use minimum recommended amount of developer), I used to pour probably double the minimum amount of developer into the Jobo tank and still got streaking if I didn't pre-wet and used stop after developer. Hell, even with pre-wetting, stop and using end flaps on the reels I'm not sure that the last streak-free development wasn't just me being lucky at the time.

I also don't believe it's got anything to do rotational agitating creating turbulence with a prominent pattern. I've never had a problem with E-6. If rotational agitation would set into a steady (not random) pattern it would be even more pronounced with longer development times as development under non random flow would be relatively longer (compared to pouring-in/out time) for E-6 than for C-41. I believe that Jobo's with lift will be better for uniformity since tank is already rotating during pouring in. But lift has also other disadvantages...

 

[ic-racer]

I started rotary processing 120 film in 1987. In 2000 I got a Jobo and have been using that same Jobo ever since. Thousands of rolls of film through it and it still looks and runs like new.

Even though I only do B&W, temperature control is a key requirement. The temperature in my darkroom changes dramatically depending on the season.

I specifically wanted the CPP2 because I need to process many 120 at once, and the CPP2 allows one to process 10 rolls at a time in the tank configuration shown.

I use the plastic reels and have never had any issue with improper development at the edges or any other development issue. I have never had streaking and don't know how that would happen as the developer is constantly swirling around at the recommended settings.

I think it is important to use a developer that is designed for rotary processing. I have been using Tmax developer since 1987. I hope they still keep making it.

I fill the Jobo with 24C water and I fill all the bottles with 24C water also. I use the 24C water in the bottles to mix the chemistry. All liquid, one-shot.

That way the unit is ready almost immediately. By the time I load the tank with film, the developer is already at correct working temperature.

 

[pentaxuser]

I also don't believe it's got anything to do rotational agitating creating turbulence with a prominent pattern. I've never had a problem with E-6. If rotational agitation would set into a steady (not random) pattern it would be even more pronounced with longer development times as development under non random flow would be relatively longer (compared to pouring-in/out time) for E-6 than for C-41.

Yes That's my point as well The turbulence and vigour of a Jobo's rotary movement seems to avoid any pattern but others just remain convinced that it does not and contributes to streaking or unevenness in development

However be that as it may, I suspect that all we will do if we continue with this aspect of the thread if get into a replica of the "never say die" thread on practical or otherwise differences between D76 and ID11 and the famous pre-wet or no pre-wet threads

Hopefully the OP has seen enough different views and experiences on this to make up his own mind. We can only lay our respective experiences before him

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

@pentaxuser The literal answer to the thread title is YES. Compared to inversion agitation, rotary processing is more likely to introduce uneven development. The reason is physics: rotary uses far less chemistry and film is never fully submerged. This narrows the margin for sloppy handling technique and makes it more susceptible to external factors, e.g. the variables I listed. This has been my experience, but I never inverted C41 manually. I am comparing inversion processor like TAS to a rotary processor.

I try and use maximum solution volumes where appropriate. Suspect some of the issues of Jobo development are down to insufficient solution volumes to process the film adequately.

I too have not have had streaking ever with the Jobo processor and I use the maximum or near maximum solution volumes. The cost of the chemicals is low while the cost of ruined negatives is much higher. I recommend not stinting on the volume of chemicals when developing film. Also using larger volumes works very well for developer replenishment by spreading the byproducts over a larger volume.

 

[brbo]

I too have not have had streaking ever with the Jobo processor and I use the maximum or near maximum solution volumes.

So you fill the tank until it starts overflowing, put the lid on and start with rotation?