Just use a replenishment regime - never any concerns with "wasting" chemistry.I could see doing inversion processing using a 2500 series tank and 6 sheets of 4x5 film. But for 8x10 using anything other than an expert drum seems like such a waste of chemistry.
I suffered from a lot of oxidation using the 2500 drums with 5x4 sheet film.I could see doing inversion processing using a 2500 series tank and 6 sheets of 4x5 film.
I've been reading my copy. Great stuff.
I notice that one or both of the authors is pretty bearish on on Jobo processing of B&W film. Certainly I understand the arguments in some cases, but it's acknowledged that when it comes to sheet film even 4x5 wouldn't necessarily show any deficiencies until a 40x50 enlargement. Personally the convenience of expert drums cannot be understated for those (most users) who have no access to dip and dunk processors or 'deep tank' systems.
I was hoping to get some clarification on the developer recommendation for rotary tanks. It seemed like the authors are recommended 'undiluted' solvent developers such as D76 or XTol. I am to take this as straight mixtures? But they also seem to advise both strengthening developer mixtures and extending times, which is certainly unusual for rotary processing.
The fact is, I'm unlikely to ever go larger than 11x14 from a 4x5 negative, and I'm contact printing 8x10. Perhaps I should just use XTol straight... I was hoping to use Pyrocat HD, but maybe I should just use that for roll film formats where the degree of enlargement is less...
I could see doing inversion processing using a 2500 series tank and 6 sheets of 4x5 film. But for 8x10 using anything other than an expert drum seems like such a waste of chemistry. John Sexton was a big proponent of Jobo processing and TMAX films, so obviously there is nothing 'wrong' with the process inherently.
We tried to make it clear, perhaps we didn't, that the reservations Bill and I have regarding the Jobo are for small format film, i.e., 35mm and 120, and for pyro developers. I have consistently said, if not in the FDCB then in other discussions, including those appearing on my own forum, darkroomcookbook.com, that the problems of reduced sharpness that we identify are not of great concern for anyone using 4x5 unless you go over 40x50" in enlargement. If this is not clear then I apologize.
However, the problems with aerial oxidation that are likely to appear with pyro unless modifications are made to the formula or processing procedure, apply to all formats.
I am not certain that we are recommending any particular developer, undiluted or otherwise, for use in rotary tanks. The main concern is that the developing agent doesn't exhaust before development is complete.
Steve,
Mine started warping-up the first day I started reading it, as I can be hard on books. I am sure the cost of a ring-bound edition that lays flat would have driven the price up substantially, but could you think about laminated covers that are not white or off-white? It's very attractive, but tends to show dirt pretty quickly.
do you have the paper or hard bound edition?
We tried to make it clear, perhaps we didn't, that the reservations Bill and I have regarding the Jobo are for small format film, i.e., 35mm and 120, and for pyro developers. I have consistently said, if not in the FDCB then in other discussions, including those appearing on my own forum, darkroomcookbook.com, that the problems of reduced sharpness that we identify are not of great concern for anyone using 4x5 unless you go over 40x50" in enlargement. If this is not clear then I apologize.
However, the problems with aerial oxidation that are likely to appear with pyro unless modifications are made to the formula or processing procedure, apply to all formats.
I am not certain that we are recommending any particular developer, undiluted or otherwise, for use in rotary tanks. The main concern is that the developing agent doesn't exhaust before development is complete.
Some just like spiral bound looseleaf books, and I understand that, but am only posting here so people are not left with the impression that there is anything wrong or second class about the quality of the cover or the binding on this book, because there isn’t. It’s impressively nice as is.
Where did you get the impression I called it "Second Class" or lower quality? Who mentioned the binding as begin defective?
If you want to rebut my statements, address what I posted and don't imply what isn't there.
Different people treat books differently. I am on chapter 8, have been reading it almost every day since I got it weeks ago, and holding it in one hand and taking notes with the other (pages of typed notes which is the only reason I haven’t finished it yet). The single most valuable photography related book I have ever seen. Have traveled with it, pulling it in and out of a softshell suitcase. It still looks as nice as the day it arrived here, so I am personally not sure that there is really any kind of problem with the cover or the binding as far as I can see.
Some just like spiral bound looseleaf books, and I understand that, but am only posting here so people are not left with the impression that there is anything wrong or second class about the quality of the cover or the binding on this book, because there isn’t. It’s impressively nice as is.
Thank you very much for this message. I really appreciate it.
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?