This can't be bromide drag, you don't use stand development techniques, do you?
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
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.
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.
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
@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.
I can only see one variable on my CPE that can be varied and that's the speed where there are 2 speeds.
Certainly in C41 processing I have never envisaged any kind of issue with Jobo rotary processing
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...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.
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:
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.
- 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
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.
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:
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.
- Jobo CPE or Filmomat Light
- Jobo Silverbase or similar from China
- Heiland TAS
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
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.
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.
@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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?