SP-645?

[grat]

I admit... This is bordering on street car to crazy-town... But the thought process goes like this:

I have an SP-445. It's very nice. It hold 4 sheets of film, and frankly, even with the few drops per inversion cycle of seepage, does a very nice job of developing 4x5 negatives.

I have this Grafmatic. It's very cool. It holds 6 sheets of film, and takes up a third of the space of 3 bog-standard 4x5 film holders.

But the Grafmatic holds 6 sheets, and the SP-445 only holds 4. So now I have an extra 2 negatives in my Grafmatic. I could do two runs in the SP-445, but now I'm using 950ml of chemical.

Then, there are spool-style holders (20th Century Film and Mod-54), both of which can take 6 4x5 sheets-- but require a Paterson 3 tank, which takes 1000ml of chemical. They're also a little fiddly to load.

Given the efficiency of the SP-445, I'm thinking a larger version could hold 3 trays, and use about 700-750ml of chemical.

Am I crazy? Are Tim and crew crazy enough to try to develop it? Or did they, and decide it was a waste of ABS? Is there enough interest in such a beast to make it worth the pain? Does anyone truly care about the 250ml of wasted developer that costs about the same as a ketchup packet?

... just a passing thought.

 

[Alan9940]

I find the 20th Century reel to be very easy to load and I don't mind a few extra millimeters of developer.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you use replenished stock strength developer (like Xtol) you won't even mind needing 1.6L for one or more 4x5 sheets like my Yankee Agitank uses. In your SP-445 with Xtol, you'll use a total of 105 ml of stock for 6 sheets in two batches (70 ml for the 4-sheet batch, and 35 ml more for the 2-sheet) -- and the same for my Yankee Agitank, despite using four times as much total liquid volume. It'll still take longer if you run the SP-445 twice, but the developer usage is about as little as is chemically possible.

 

[tim48v]

Sorry for the delayed response but we wanted to do some thinking before replying. Actually, an SP-645 might be a good idea. It could probably use the same lid and film holders as the SP-445 but would need different baffles. Obviously, we'd have to do a mold for a new tank ($$$$).

Our rough calculation says it would be just under 700 ml of solution; so it's actually just a tad more efficient.

It would cost a bit more, partially because it would ship with three film holders rather than just two.

I guess we need to run a poll and see what people think.

 

[BrianShaw]

I’d be a buyer.

 

[wyofilm]

Ok, since we are asking for stuff - I would like film holders that can be used directly in the development step. Insert film holder into development tank slots. How many film holder slots - 2, 3, 4? Pull dark slides. Cover tank. and move onto developing.

Does fluid need to flow on the non-development side of sheet film?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Does fluid need to flow on the non-development side of sheet film?

Yes, but not necessarily at the same time you develop the emulsion. I've processed 9x12cm and 4x5 sheet film in a tank made from ABS drain pipe; the base side of the film is tight against the tank and the film often comes out of the process with the anthalation dye still present on the base side (Fomapan especially), but it either washes out along with the fixer residue, or a short refix or sodium sulfite bath will remove it and the negatives are indistinguishable from those done by other methods in the end.

That's a interesting idea -- I foresee scratching negatives when you unload them, wet, from the film holders post-processing, as well as a certain level of PITA getting the holders clean after this use, but it seems as if it ought to be possible.

 

[grat]

Sorry for the delayed response but we wanted to do some thinking before replying. Actually, an SP-645 might be a good idea. It could probably use the same lid and film holders as the SP-445 but would need different baffles. Obviously, we'd have to do a mold for a new tank ($$$$).

I appreciate the response, and I fully understand the cost issue. I think the lid might need at least minor alterations, however-- currently it's got the two notches for the holders on each end.

 

[tim48v]

We've looked into this idea years ago (as have others.) Frankly, it just gets too complicate too fast. Lots of parts that have to work perfectly and I doubt it would really save that much time or effort.
Tim

Ok, since we are asking for stuff - I would like film holders that can be used directly in the development step. Insert film holder into development tank slots. How many film holder slots - 2, 3, 4? Pull dark slides. Cover tank. and move onto developing.

Does fluid need to flow on the non-development side of sheet film?

 

[tim48v]

The thought process was to remove the notches. Might need an adapter to make the tabs wider and make the new tank a little deeper. Just have to test and see what works.
Tim

I appreciate the response, and I fully understand the cost issue. I think the lid might need at least minor alterations, however-- currently it's got the two notches for the holders on each end.

 

[grat]

That's probably better than my more complicated idea-- snap in pieces with either two or three notches. While convenient, it's two extra molds.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

I use 2 SP-445 at the same time. Very easy to process the 2 together. Problem solved

 

[grat]

What's next: SP-645, SP-8x20, Bigger and Better...

SP-645 The original SP-445 wasn't even in production and people were asking for a higher capacity version! We had requests for systems that could process six, eight, ten and even a few asking for twelve sheets. Anything past eight gets really complicated, really fast. Even an eight sheet version...

shop.stearmanpress.com

 

[BrianShaw]

Excellent! Good to hear… thanks @grat!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yeah, and now I need to think about the SP-645. I had the same issue with Grafmatics, and already had/have the Agitank (which I truly like, only complaint has been the ease of misloading causing sheets to contact each other). If nothing else, a Grafmatic load of color film would be a big deal in the Agitank (especially with the one-shot first developer for E-6), vs. much less chemistry in the SP-645...

 

[MTGseattle]

I know this thread is geared towards the Steerman products (and I greatly appreciate the work they are doing), but no love for the mod54 film holder? It holds 6 sheets. I guess it may hamper certain processing methods?

 

[Rayt]

I know this thread is geared towards the Steerman products (and I greatly appreciate the work they are doing), but no love for the mod54 film holder? It holds 6 sheets. I guess it may hamper certain processing methods?

It’s not the Mod54 holder’s fault and probably mostly user error but I have had instances where the sheets jump the the slots and stick together. I agitate very gently with the Mod54 as a result and needed to recalculate my times. I prefer the Steerman and the Orbital.

 

[grat]

I've shied away from the MOD54. I haven't used one, but to me, it looks difficult to properly load in the dark. The only thing keeping the film in is the spring tension of the film itself. I have the 20th Century Reel (3x4 and 4x5) and both work well-- others have reported scratching, but I haven't this issue.

 

[MTGseattle]

Both valid points. My first 4x5 processing ever at home was jumping right in with 6 sheets in the mod54. I ended up with the bottom of 2 sheets touching. One sheet basically ruined; the other would only need about 2mm cropped. I was gentle with agitation compared to roll film development, but not super gentle. Just nice slow-ish and steady inversions. I do need to order an sp-810 though.

 

[tim48v]

In case you've ever wondered what a mold looks like, here's an exploded view of the mold for the SP-645 tank. Click the photo for more info.

 

[koraks]

It’s not the Mod54 holder’s fault and probably mostly user error but I have had instances where the sheets jump the the slots and stick together.

This echoes my experience. I used the Mod54 for a while. Loading it properly took some getting used to, but it's not too hard. Some daylight runs are necessary to get the alignment right, but once you've got it, it's fairly easy to do in the dark. However, the problem with sheets 'jumping' a slot is inherent to the design. Agitation indeed needs to be very gentle to prevent this.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I think this is why I have been using BTZS tubes for the past 25 years. I can do one 4x5 sheet with only 60ml solution. The only thing I dislike about it is doing more than four sheets (so I only do 4)... it takes a lot of focus spinning all those tubes!

 

[Rayt]

This echoes my experience. I used the Mod54 for a while. Loading it properly took some getting used to, but it's not too hard. Some daylight runs are necessary to get the alignment right, but once you've got it, it's fairly easy to do in the dark. However, the problem with sheets 'jumping' a slot is inherent to the design. Agitation indeed needs to be very gentle to prevent this.

I had to change the way I agitate and also did more Rodinal stand development to prevent the sheets from popping out. I switched to Stearman and was happy again and I kept the Mod54 only for the water rinse.

 

[tim48v]

Photos of the first prototype out of the mold!

Note the heavy "diamond plate" texture.

We should have samples for testing early next week; production (if all goes well), mid-May.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Wow. Half the film capacity of my Yankee Agitank, but with less than 1/3 the liquid required. But for four times the price...