• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Tank for single roll 120

SalveSlog

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
270
Location
Southern Norway
Format
Medium Format
Only tank I've ever used is the common Paterson tank for 1 spool 120 or 2 spools 35mm. I mostly develop 120, and to use less chemicals I sometimes load the spool with 2 films. That's OK, but it would be fine to be able to develop one film only, with less chemicals than that Paterson tank require (500ml).

Looking at the Arista steel tank for one 120 film:
Is 16oz its actual volume or is it the amount of developer required? If it's the required amount of developer, it's not significantly less than the Paterson needs, and I'd have to look for other alternatives..
 
The steel 120 single roll tanks require 16 oz(450ml) of chemicals to process film, only 50 ml less than the plastic tanks.
 
Any (manual) tanks that need less?
Click to expand...
I don't know of any, it really comes down to the amount of volume a spooled roll of 120 (or whatever) takes.

Using a rotary tank, for example a Jobo, would probably be the next step. Regardless of the method, you need to be careful to make sure you have sufficient developing agent for the amount of film you are processing.

If you need a DIY project, there are reels made for 220 which have the wires more closely wound, and so the diameter used by a 120 roll would be less. In theory, you could cut the reel to the smaller diameter, then make or adapt a smaller tank to fit it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the grand scheme, your chemical costs are probably the single cheapest component to your photography, but also the most critical. They're one area where I would not go seeking economy. As Bdial mentioned, if you want to use less chemistry, then your only option is to go to rotary processing and get a Jobo tank and reels. If you're not doing large volumes of film, though, they're not terribly economical as they are not cheap. You'll have to process hundreds of rolls to save enough on chemistry to pay for the Jobo tank and reel.
 
OK. For saving chemistry (and environment) my way to go will be 2 films on one roll in my Paterson tank, when that's practical.

If I shoot 6x9 that's only 16 frames, after all. Much less than the horrible 36 with 35mm!
 
SalveSlog said:
OK. For saving chemistry (and environment) my way to go will be 2 films on one roll in my Paterson tank, when that's practical.

If I shoot 6x9 that's only 16 frames, after all. Much less than the horrible 36 with 35mm!
Click to expand...

How are you running 2 rolls of 120 in a single reel?
 
TheFlyingCamera said:
How are you running 2 rolls of 120 in a single reel?
Click to expand...

Plastic reels are big enough to spool 220 film, or you can tape two rolls of 120 end to end and run.
 
SalveSlog said:
OK. For saving chemistry (and environment) my way to go will be 2 films on one roll in my Paterson tank, when that's practical.

If I shoot 6x9 that's only 16 frames, after all. Much less than the horrible 36 with 35mm!
Click to expand...

Closer to 144 if you load two rolls each back-to-back on two reels... and 152 if you load the camera in the dark.

I never liked loading back-to-back preferring to waste chemistry instead. If I'm going to bother processing the film that means I think it has significant value. If it has significant value then it's worth the cost of the chemistry to minimize possibility of errors. Also, it increases difficulty in loading the film and since I'm lazy I'll never do that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rick A said:
Plastic reels are big enough to spool 220 film, or you can tape two rolls of 120 end to end and run.
Click to expand...

Ok. That makes sense then. I've seen plenty of the Paterson tanks, but never loaded film on one. The white plastic reels always look too small to take 2 rolls of 120 end-to-end. I was always a stainless steel kind of guy until I got my Jobo. Now I have a set of Jobo 2500-series tanks and reels, which will do 2 rolls of 120 per reel, 1 roll of 220 or 1 roll 35mm.
 
A couple of points:

1) If you use developer in a replenishment regime, your concerns about minimum volume disappear. Kodak X-Tol, Kodak T-Max RS and Ilford ID-11 (once you find the instructions) come to mind;
2) I load two 120 rolls end to end on to a single Paterson reel (actually an AP reel that works in a Paterson tank) all the time. If you don't use rotary processing, you need not worry about taping the rolls together;
3) Rotary processing allows you to reduce the amount of chemistry you use. The AP tanks work well on a Beseler roller processor base, if you put them in a large Tupperware like container (see photo below with a steel reel tank);
4) The Paterson Super System 4 2x120 tanks work great on a Beseler roller processor base, if you add a big rubber band.
 

Attachments

  • develop.jpg
    612.1 KB · Views: 94

If you're going to load them end-to-end, I'd still tape them to be on the safe side even if you are hand-agitating. It is possible to overlap them without realizing it and ruin the last and first frames on the roll at a minimum.
 
HP Combina made two tanks for one-reel 120 film, a smaller that takes 450ml and a larger for 750ml. Both tanks also accept 135 reels and in that case less chemicals are needed. It is written on the outside bottom of the tanks . . .

Although the larger uses more liquids, I prefer it as the film has more space to go on the reel nicely. As for the environment, I keep the waste developer and fix and bring it away to the correct place.

From the same brand I also have the large tanks for 3 reels/120 tanks, or 5 reels 135 . . . And yes, sometimes it is very nice to just develop one film at the time . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register