The Taco Method for 4x5

[Kirks518]

So I fell into LF yesterday, and I happen to have 50 sheets of Super-XX (4142) that I've decided to try.

To develop them, I'll be giving the taco method a whirl in my Paterson System 4 tank with D-76 (only dev I have at the moment).

The film expired in 1978, and to be safe, I'm at 80 for the first batch (of 4). Best I can find, development time in D-76 should be about 13 minutes, but I haven't figured if that's stock or 1:1. (anyone know?)

One thing I've considered doing is developing the sheets individually. But then I think about all the developer I'd waste. But, if my thinking is correct, I should be able to re-use the developer for 4 sheets without having to replenish, since a typical taco arrangement is 4 sheets with the same amount of dev that I'd be using for one sheet. I almost think I'd be able to reuse it for maybe even 6 sheets, as IIRC, there is a 6 sheet insert for the Paterson.

Can I do this successfully? In all honesty, I'm expecting the film to not be much good, but I've had lots of luck with lots of O.O.D film in the past.

 

[pdeeh]

I've done taco 4 sheets with all sorts of developers and it's always worked fine. Just be sure you use scrunchies/ponies without metal fasteners, and at least 800ml of developer ... otherwise you'll get a "tide mark" (don't, as they say, ask me how I know ...)

 

[themicahmachine]

It's possible and I did it for a while with good success after the first batch (we don't talk about the first batch). I did eventually break down and get a MOD54, which I like very much.

 

[Photo Engineer]

My Super XX from the same era did well at 9 minutes which was the recommended time way back then. It was a hair foggy. I used ISO 100. The shots looked just fine.

PE

 

[Kirks518]

My Super XX from the same era did well at 9 minutes which was the recommended time way back then. It was a hair foggy. I used ISO 100. The shots looked just fine.

PE

Thanks PE. I took 4 shots yesterday, both to familiarize myself with the camera, and to see if the film was any good. The first two shots I rated the film as 100, the second 2 I rated at 50. I almost think I can go more than 100, as the shots at 100 look overexposed to me. I used a Pentax 1° Spotmeter M, and both of the 100 shots were aimed at the horizontal slats in the swing.

I developed the 4 shots together for 13 minutes in stock D-76.

Shots #1 & 2 - EV 100

Shots #3 & 4 - EV 50

#4 obvious there is a light leak in the holder.

As for digitizing, they were scanned on my Canon 9000F II with no adjustments, and then stitched together using PS Photomerge, again no adjustments.

 

[Photo Engineer]

They probably look overexposed because they are overdeveloped at 13'. IDK for sure.

PE

 

[Nige]

better off taking digipics of the negs either on a lightbox (might be able to use the scanner light) or held up on a window than a scanned image. Scanner will be doing it's own version of the truth, even with auto adjustments turned off.

 

[Kirks518]

better off taking digipics of the negs either on a lightbox (might be able to use the scanner light) or held up on a window than a scanned image. Scanner will be doing it's own version of the truth, even with auto adjustments turned off.

But won't a digicam (phone or camera), apply it's own 'translation' of the image anyway?

They probably look overexposed because they are overdeveloped at 13'. IDK for sure.

PE

I agree, as they are pretty dense. 13 mins was the only info I was able to find the other night. Next time I'll give 9 mins a shot.

 

[Nige]

But won't a digicam (phone or camera), apply it's own 'translation' of the image anyway?

yes, but less so, and it will be relative. Things like the density of the shadows, the contrast between highlights and shadows, along with density of edge rebates all add up to analysing negative development. There's an old photographers 'rule' that you should be able to read a newspaper through the highlights so maybe try that.

Looking at the one pic that you have edge rebate in I'd say the neg is overexposed. The first 2 show (on my screen... yet another variable!) a hint of detail in the highlights which indicate development wasn't excessive.

However, I've re-read your initial question (wondering if I'm off track about your question.. which I am a bit, but anyway, such is life!) I do 2 tacos (only have rubber bands to suit and have never tried to find smaller ones to for doing 3 or 4 at a time in a Paterson System 4 tank and use 900ml of developer (XTOL 1:1). I will reuse the develop at least once (for another 2 negs) but only straight away (I have 2 tanks) so within 15mins of mixing it (I usually start developing the 2nd tank once the 1st is being washed as I only can do one of those at a time). I think I did an extra set once but not my normal procedure. 4 negs in a session is enough for me.

 

[drmoss_ca]

I don't think I posted it here, but when I first tried the taco method I couldn't get it work, and at the time I didn't want to pay for a Mod54 (later I gave in and bought one). Consequently, I used a tall metal tank with a homemade coat-hanger wire separator to prevent the two sheets of film moving and ending up one on top of the other. Here are pictures (don't shoot me for taking them with a digital camera!) First the end of a thick wire coat hanger, cut off, bent inwards at the cut ends and trimmed, with the length of plastic straw in place:

Putting it into the tank:

Seated right down:

It's quite a tight fit, and the curved sides are in contact with the walls of the tank. A 4x5 negative slides down on either side, emulsion facing inwards, and the curvature of the tank is such that there is space between the back of the negative and the wall of the tank so liquid can flow around that side of the film too. If the negative tries to rotate around the wall of the tank it comes up against my gadget and can go no further. In the last picture the negatives aren't pushed all the way down, just to make them easier to see:

I later added another piece of bent wire to prevent the sheets of film riding up in the tank and possibly sticking up above the fluid level:



and in situ:



It works perfectly, and used one coat hanger and one hard plastic straw. I got the MOD54 later so as to do four sheets at a time.

Chris

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Here's another simple but robust DIY option...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Ken

 

[Kirks518]

Those are some great mods.

I did the first two runs using the standard taco method, and everything came out fine. Then I stopped by a place that has an old photo shop's inventory, and picked up an FR cut sheet tank. Haven't tried it yet, and I've read it's not the greatest, but I figured it was better then nothing. Once I get a round tuit, I'll report back on my success or failure.